Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. Speaker in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

DUNDEE EXTENSION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL (By Order)

Order for Third Reading read.

To be read the Third time upon Thursday next.

EXPERIMENTS ON LIVING ANIMALS

Address for Return,
of Experiments performed under the Act 39 and 40 Vict. c. 77, during 1971.—[Mr. Carlisle.]

OFFENCES RELATING TO MOTOR VEHICLES

Address for Return,
showing the number of offences relating to motor vehicles in England and Wales, the number of persons prosecuted for such offences, statistics of court proceedings and the number of alleged offences in respect of which written warnings were issued by the police, together with the number of persons concerned, during the year ended the 31st day of December, 1971.—[Mr. Carlisle.]

Oral Answers to Questions — HOME DEPARTMENT

Police Investigations (Access to Lawyers)

Mr. George Cunningham: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in the light of the report of Mr. Michael Zander in the June issue of the Criminal Law Review, a copy of which is in his possession, he will give fresh instructions to the Metropolitan Police and guidance to other police

authorities on the rights of persons being questioned to have access to a lawyer.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Mark Carlisle): I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave to a Question by the right hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) on 15th June.—[Vol. 838, c. 368.]

Mr. Cunningham: Does the Minister accept that his predecessor told me in January that he had no information of the number of cases in which access to a lawyer had been denied and that in February, in spite of that fact, he did not think the matter worthy of investigation? Does he not think that especially in the Metropolitan Police area, which is under his control, the police need to be reminded that the let-out clause in the Judges' Rules about interrupting investigations should not be used to impede access to a lawyer by prisoners in their hands?

Mr. Carlisle: It is a quite clear, accepted principle that every person, at any stage of investigation, should be able to communicate with or consult privately a solicitor. That applies to people in custody as well as to those not in custody, provided that in such a case no unreasonable delay or hindrance is caused. The Commissioner of Police will always investigate any complaint brought to him about refusal to be allowed to consult a solicitor.

Mr. John Fraser: Does not Mr. Zander's article show a disturbing rate of 74 per cent. refusals to consult a lawyer? In the circumstances will the Home Office institute an urgent inquiry into the difference between the theoretical rights of citizens in the hands of the police and the exercise of those rights in practice, so that when we look at the Criminal Law Revision Committee's proposals we shall have a balanced view about the rights of the community and the rights of the individual?

Mr. Carlisle: The hon. Member referred to the figure of 74 per cent. but that relates to those who had not contacted a solicitor, which is somewhat different from those who were refused permission to contact a solicitor. The arrangements will be reviewed in the light of our consideration of the Criminal Law Revision Committee's Report on Evidence.

Shoplifting

Mr. Adley: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of pleas of not guilty on shoplifting charges resulted in acquittals; and what was the average percentage of pleas of not guilty resulting in acquittals for other offences against property with out violence, for the last three years for which figures are available.

Mr. Carlisle: Of all persons who pleaded not guilty in 1971 to shoplifting charges in all courts in England and Wales, 37·3 per cent. were acquitted or had the charges withdrawn or dismissed. Not all the other information sought is available; but I shall write to my hon. Friend with whatever information I canobtain.

Mr. Adley: I am grateful for that answer, but does it not indicate that the shortage of statistical knowledge about the problem is one of the main causes of concern to magistrates, lawyers, the police and the medical profession? Will my hon. and learned Friend seriously consider the need to review the criteria by which statistics are compiled by the Home Office and see whether it is time to produce separate statistics for supermarket shoplifting?

Mr. Carlisle: I have been able to give my hon. Friend an answer about shoplifting and the percentage acquitted. We do not keep statistics at the moment in that way with regard to all offences but I shall try to find out what further information I can from the research department.

Private Detectives

Mr. Loveridge: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received in his consideration of whether to set up a central licensing authority to register and regulate the work of private detectives in this country.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department, Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Robert Carr): None, Sir, although I am of course aware of public comment.

Mr. Loveridge: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Younger Report on

privacy estimates that 3,000 people are engaged in private detective work and that, while most of them are no doubt reputable, the fact that criminals can enter the business and impose on the innocent is a danger? Will my right hon. Friend therefore take steps to regulate the work?

Mr. Carr: I want to consider carefully this and the other recommendations in the Younger Report but I assure my hon. Friend that I shall consider this particular recommendation very carefully indeed. It would be idle to deny that there are difficulties about it and this is what I shall need to look into.

Mr. Arthur Davidson: Is it not a matter of great public concern that people who have criminal records can set up as private detectives? I know that the Home Secretary is concerned about this matter but will he look at it as a matter of urgency?

Mr. Carr: Of course I shall. As I think I have indicated, I realise that this is a matter about which there is much concern. I shall seriously look at the matter with care in the context of the Younger Report.

Confidential Information (Alleged Leaks)

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has yet received a report from the Director of Public Prosecutions on the report submitted to them about leaks of confidential information from Government Departments.

Mr. Carlisle: I am not yet in a position to add to the reply given to the hon. Member's Question on 29th June.—[Vol. 839, c. 388–9.]

Mr. Huckfield: As this is a serious and urgent matter, when does the hon. and learned Gentleman expect to receive some communication from the Director of Public Prosecutions? Is he aware that as the Younger Committee on Privacy was not allowed to investigate the public sector, this report will be the first review of the public sector that we shall have had?

Mr. Carlisle: The hon. Member must appreciate that the Director of Public Prosecutions is still considering whether


criminal charges should be brought against anyone referred to in the report and I cannot comment on it in advance, or say when the DPP will have completed his consideration.
The hon. Gentleman knows from answers to previous Questions that he has asked that the survey of the use of Government computers to record personal details has been completed.

Mr. John Fraser: At Question time four weeks ago, I was given an assurance that circulars about the disclosure of confidential information to professional bodies would be disclosed. When will that be done?

Mr. Carlisle: I will have to look into that.

Prison Labour

Mr. Thomas Cox: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the total value in money terms of prison contracts involving the use of prison labour granted to the Prison Department in each of the last five years.

Mr. Carlisle: The approximate value of contracts carried out by the use of prison labour in industrial workshops in England and Wales, in each of the last five years for which figures are available, was:

£ million


1967–68
2·52


1968–69
2·79


969–70
3·02


1970–71
4·03


1971–72
4·73

Mr. Cox: I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for that reply. I am sure that he is aware of the excellent work recently undertaken at Wandsworth Prison where part of the prison has been modernised by the use of prison labour and where the work has been done far more efficiently and far more quickly than private contractors would have been able to do it. Will he therefore impress upon his Department that prison labour should be used wherever possible within the service, especially for the repair and maintenance of prison officers' accommodation, which is in urgent need of attention?

Mr. Carlisle: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I fully appreciate what he says

and that I share his view about the use of inmate labour, particularly for building work in prisons. We are using inmate labour substantially in these respects and I have personally been involved in opening two prisons where inmate labour has been used in building prisons.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Would my hon. and learned Friend consider paying prisoners a little more, not giving them the money week by week but making it available to them when they come out, so that when they leave prison they may feel that they have something to keep them going for a while—something which has resulted from the increased work which they have undertaken?

Mr. Carlisle: This suggestion has been made on a number of occasions. As my hon. Friend knows, the amount paid to prisoners has recently been increased by a small amount. An encouraging feature about prison work generally is that it is far more widely available to prisoners than it was a few years ago, or a decade ago.

Mr. George Cunningham: Would the Minister of State also bear in mind that the rates at present payable mean that workshops for the elderly are undercut by prison labour doing simple labouring jobs, which means that workshops for the elderly find it difficult to get enough work to keep them going?

Mr. Carlisle: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that we are always on a knife-edge, with the desire on the one side to provide adequate employment for prisoners and our concern on the other side to see that it does not detrimentally interfere with work done by people outside prisons. We are careful to ensure, first, that we do not get an undue proportion of any market and, secondly, that our rates do not undercut outside rates.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: Has the Minister of State considered the possibility of the practice applied in at least one other country by which prison labour is paid the full union rate but some is then deducted for lodging, accommodation and savings for when the prisoner leaves jail? I mention that because it is crucial in allowing prisoners to rehabilitate themselves.

Mr. Carlisle: Perhaps I should have pointed out to my hon. Friend that payments at the moment are in the form of pocket money, as prisoners do not pay anything towards their keep while in prison. We are anxious to see a situation in which prisoners, while in prison, are able to save more money towards their rehabilitation when they come out. That is a most sensible suggestion.

Lorries (Overloading)

Mr. Ashton: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the chief constable as to why Nottinghamshire has a higher rate of prosecutions for overloading of lorries than any other county.

Mr. Carlisle: The prosecution rates for different offences must depend on such factors as the incidence of the offence, the competing claims for police attention, and the way in which the chief officer of police has decided to deploy his resources. It would be difficult to establish why rates differ in different areas, and I do not think it would be worthwhile to try.

Mr. Ashton: Has the hon. and learned Gentleman seen the report in the AA magazine Drive in which it is said that the police in Nottinghamshire have secured more than 1,100 convictions for the overloading of lorries while the police in Bedfordshire have secured only one? Why is it that in areas where disasters occur when there is fog on the motorways, disasters caused because lorries are overloaded, the local police do virtually nothing? Why do they not follow the example of the Nottinghamshire police?

Mr. Carlisle: I was aware that the hon. Gentleman's Question arose out of that article. The decision whether to prosecute must be for the chief constable. Clearly, factors differ between areas, but I will draw the hon. Gentleman's comment to the attention of the Chief Constable of Bedfordshire.

Postal Voting

Mr. Brocklebank-Fowler: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has completed his review of the law affecting postal votes; and if he will now make a statement.

Mr. Tilney: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will now introduce legislation to enable all electors who are going to be absent from their houses at a time of an election to qualify for a postal vote.

Mr. R. Carr: I am proposing that the question of absent voting generally should be included in the terms of reference of the forthcoming Speaker's Conference.

Mr. Brocklebank-Fowler: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does he recall Early Day Motion No. 1 and his right hon. Friend's words when closing the debate on 24th July, which showed the extent to which disfranchisement was suffered at the last General Election? Would he therefore undertake that some action will be taken to put this right before the next General Election?

Mr. Carr: I will refresh my memory about an Early Day Motion as long ago as No. 1 and about my right hon. Friend's remarks. However, I know that this is a serious matter, but it will be for the Speaker's Conference to recommend any change, although of course hon. Members may put their views to that conference.

Mr. Tilney: Having raised this matter more than two years ago, and having received a statement from the then Minister of State that many people had been disfranchised at the last General Election through being on holiday, may I welcome what my right hon. Friend said and ask that as well as those on holiday, Service voters shall be taken into account especially as at present they have to register every year?

Mr. Carr: I hope that that, too, may be taken into consideration in the forthcoming Speaker's Conference, for I am sure that we must all be concerned about the possibility of anybody being effectively disfranchised.

Mr. Leonard: Would the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the last Speaker's Conference had put to it a proposal for an electoral register which would be kept permanently up to date by the use of computer techniques, which would remove the necessity for postal votes for the great majority of people moving home during the course of a year? Although the Speaker's Conference recommended a feasibility study, the feasibility


study was confined to investigating the use of computers for laying out the electoral register and completely ignored the proposal that the register should be kept constantly up to date. Would the right hon. Gentleman ensure that the next Speaker's Conference will have this proposal put before it with a high degree of urgency marked against it?

Mr. Carr: I expect that matters of registration and so on will also be considered by the Speaker's Conference. I will certainly keep this in mind and of course the conference will be open to receive the views of hon. Members.

Mr. Baxter: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it has been alleged that students get a vote in their univerity town and a vote where they reside? Should not this be looked into at the same time as other matters are considered?

Mr. Carr: Problems of multiple registration and the basis of residence are also matters which should be considered.

Alimony (Non-Payment)

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many letters he received in June, 1972, from women who had failed to obtain alimony granted them by court order.

Mr. Carlisle: Five, Sir.

Mr. Dalyell: Can anything be done, in co-operation with the Inland Revenue, to help those women who are paying tax on alimony that they do not receive?

Mr. Carlisle: The fact that I may give an unhelpful supplementary answer will not, I hope, make the hon. Gentleman feel that I do not accept the purpose behind the campaign he is running on this important matter, but it must be a matter for the Treasury, not the Home Office, and I understand that the hon. Gentleman has a Question down to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor on that point.

Mr. Whitehead: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman also undertake to examine those unfortunate occasions when a woman is awarded derisory alimony by the courts because the man who has deserted her can show that he is supporting another wife, or a common law wife, and a family? In those cases

such women are given very little to live on.

Mr. Carlisle: The amount of any individual order must be a matter for the courts. There is a power at any time to apply to vary the order if the individual spouse believes that the resources of the other spouse have varied. I am sure the courts will always bear in mind the responsibility of the man to maintain his wife or his ex-wife, whichever it may be.

Lead in Toys Regulations

Mrs. Joyce Butler: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals he is making for extending the Lead in Toys Regulations to include the coloured adhesive paper used in schools.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Lane): None, Sir. The lead content of substances used in schools is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science.

Mrs. Butler: Is it not a fact that some batches of coloured sticky paper have been shown to contain quite high levels of lead? Since the paper is used in large quantities by young children at home and in school, and has to be licked in order to be used, is it not important that it should be brought within the scope of the Home Office regulations for lead in toys, because such paper is virtually a toy and should be strictly controlled?

Mr. Lane: Yes, Sir, certainly. But we would rather deal with the matter in a different way. There have been one or two examples of sticky paper being found to be over the upper limit of lead content, which I think is 0·5 per cent. under the present regulations, but my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science has already issued guidance about the lead content of some materials in schools, and she is to take steps now to add coloured gummed paper to the list. If there needs to be further action by the Home Office for paper generally on sale to the public, we shall be ready to take that action.

Exeter Prison

Mr. John Hannam: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department


if, in view of recent representations made by the Governor and Chairman of the Board of Visitors of Exeter Prison, he will take immediate action to improve the toilet facilities there.

Mr. Carlisle: Authority has been given for certain minor works. We are seeing whether further improvements can be made.

Mr. Hannam: I thank my hon. and learned Friend for that slightly encouraging answer. Is he aware that since 1968, when strong representations were first made about the appalling lack of adequate lavatory facilities at Exeter Prison, the number of prisoners has increased from 289 to 384, which results in there being only one lavatory for every 43 inmates? Does he agree that the ensuing slopping-out procedures which must be carried out are nauseating and out-of-date, and that the utmost priority should be given to improving the facilities?

Mr. Carlisle: I am fully aware that the sanitary arrangements at Exeter Prison are not wholly satisfactory. The Regional Director for the South-West has authorised the adaptation of some of the existing sanitary facilities, and among the further improvements we are considering are the provision of additional lavatories. As to sanitation generally and the policy of slopping-out, all cells in new prisons and units of accommodation now being built at existing prisons will be provided with integral sanitation.

Voluntary Civil Aid Service

Mr. Blaker: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will now state the results of his discussions with county civil defence officers on the use of units of the Voluntary Civil Aid Service.

Mr. Lane: My impression is that civil defence officers are fully aware of the use which may be made by local authorities of voluntary organisations, including units of the National Voluntary Civil Aid Service.

Mr. Blaker: Bearing in mind the support which my hon. Friend has so rightly said the Government wish to give to the voluntary services, including the VCAS, has he yet been able to assess the extent

to which local authorities intend to make use of such units, bearing in mind also the circular issued by his Department some months ago?

Mr. Lane: Yes, Sir. I had a chance to do that at a conference of civil defence officers at the end of last month. I believe that already wide use is being made of such units. The local authorities are very anxious to increase their links with the voluntary movement. I particularly mentioned that in the speech I made on that occasion.

Sir D. Renton: I welcome my hon. Friend's acknowledgment of the sustained efforts of the VCAS. Is he aware that its efforts would be even more valuable if it could be given a modicum of training equipment? Will he please consider that?

Mr. Lane: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for what he said. I shall certainly consider it. It is not a point that has been brought to my attention until now, but I shall look further into it.

Sir T. Beamish: Is my hon. Friend aware that some local authorities are making excellent use of the VCAS whereas others are making very little or no use of it? Is it not most unsatisfactory that the national pattern should be so patchy?

Mr. Lane: Yes, Sir. I hope that what I said at the conference at Eastbourne may help in this direction. If there are particular black spots that my hon. and gallant Friend could quietly tell me about, I shall be glad to look further into them.

Palestine Liberation Organisation

Mr. Kaufman: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received with regard to the use of his powers in relation to the planned setting up in London of an office of the Palestine Liberation Organisation.

Mr. Clinton Davis: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what further representations have now been made to him concerning the use of his powers in connection with the proposed opening of an


office in London by Arab terrorist organisations; and if he will make a statement;
(2) how many Metropolitan Police officers will be engaged in operations concerning the proposed opening of an office in London by Arab terrorist organisations; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many representations he has received from hon. and right hon. Members, to the latest convenient date, objecting to visits to the United Kingdom by members of the Palestine Liberation Organisation.

Mr. R. Carr: A number of individuals and organisations have represented that the Palestine Liberation Organisation should not be permitted to open an office in this country. In particular, representations have been received from 40 right hon. and hon. Members, and my predecessor received a deputation on 11th July from the Board of Deputies of British Jews.
As the House is aware, there is no power to prevent an organisation from setting up an office and in my view there could be difficulties in enforcing any legislation which might be proposed for this purpose.
I would, however, like to assure the House that whether an office is opened or not I shall not hesitate to use to the full my powers to keep out or to expel any alien who seems likely to engage in acts of violence or to encourage or incite such acts. The courts, moreover, have ample powers to deal with any breach of the criminal law.
In the event of an office being opened it would be for the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis to consider what police attention may be needed. He has assured me that the situation would be carefully watched.

Mr. Kaufman: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that extremely helpful reply. If such an office were opened in this country, there is grave apprehension that it could be used as a base for both hijacking and political assassination, since organisations affiliated to the Palestine Liberation Organisation have a very evil record in that regard,

even in London. We recall what happened to the Jordanian Ambassador here. That being so, will the right hon. Gentleman assure us that what he said about excluding people from this country will ensure that no one who has a recent record of involvement in violence or terrorist activity will have the possibility of being admitted to this country?

Mr. Carr: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his opening remarks. I can only repeat my assurance that I am very well aware not only of the concern but of the substantial reasons for concern. I shall certainly keep a very close watch on the matter.

Mr. Finsberg: I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply, which will give a great deal of comfort to my many non-Jewish constituents who have written to me. May I also express satisfaction that the Home Department is not trying to hide behind the fact that the PLO is nominally respectable because it happens to be affiliated to the Arab League?

Mr. Carr: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I should like to take up just one point. Of course, I know that the concern is by no means limited to Jewish members of our community.

Mr. Davis: I join other hon. Members in congratulating the right hon. Gentleman on the line he has taken. Is he aware that I, like the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg), have received a large number of protests from constituents who have been deeply disturbed? To some extent, perhaps their fears may now be put at rest. Can the right hon. Gentleman indicate, following his discussions with the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis, the likely amount of money that will have to be expended on carrying out an accurate and extensive surveillance of the premises when they are opened?

Mr. Carr: I will talk to the Commissioner, but I cannot off-hand give any indication of the amount.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: May I, too, thank my right hon. Friend for the action he proposes to take? Does he agree that there must be rather more surveillance of this organisation than of normal organisations because it must not have a safe base from which it can be allowed to


commit any organised crimes outside this country? I know that the Government cannot get the Official Solicitor to do anything—[Laughter.]—and I know that the Press are not publishing, but could the House request the Official Solicitor to bring the necessary injunctions to keep these so-and-sos out?

Mr. Carr: I do not think it would be in the national interest for me to try to enlarge on the care with which we watch the aliens who seek to come here. I can only repeat that I do realise that this would be a particularly high risk activity.

Mr. Fidlergg: As President of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, may I express deep appreciation to my right hon. Friend for the courtesy extended to the deputation which saw his predecessor recently? While recognising that there is no legal power to prevent this organisation from establishing an office here, may I ask whether his attention has been drawn to a letter in the Daily Telegraph of 19th July over the signature of Said Hammami signing himself as Representative of the PLO Arab Information Centre in London in which he refers to the British Governments "consent" to the opening of an office by the PLO in London? Will he make it clear that consent could not be given and never has been?

Mr. Carr: I would be glad to give that confirmation. No consent was needed and certainly no consent has ever been given.

Commonwealth Immigrants

Mr. Biggs-Davison: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department why more Commonwealth immigrants, other than British passport holders, were admitted, and fewer refused admission, to the United Kingdom in April, 1972, than in April, 1971; and whether he will now declare a moratorium on further such immigration.

Mr. R. Carr: The numbers of Commonwealth citizens admitted for settlement or refused admission necessarily fluctuate from month to month. It is the general trend which is significant, and for the first five months of this year the number of admissions is actually slightly down on last year. Most of those admitted are the wives and young children

of men already settled here, and I am not prepared to prevent the reunion of families.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Quite apart from dependants, has my right hon. Friend observed that the figures for April, 1972, include 19 voucher holders from India and 133 other settlers? With unemployment and a housing shortage, is this justified? Will my right hon. Friend not close his mind to the suggestion in the second part of my Question?

Mr. Carr: We must look at the trend. Although April was slightly higher than April last year, the May figures which I am about to announce were somewhat lower, and the five months show a small decline on the previous year. As my hon. Friend will know, we reduced the number of employment vouchers last year from 8,500 to 2,700 and on 3rd May this year the number was further reduced to 2,250.

Mr. James Lamond: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that control which is too rigid can cause considerable anguish to families already in this country? Is he aware of the case of a constituent of mine in Oldham, the details of which I have given him, in which one daughter out of a family of five was refused admission to this country? Will he see that these decisions are reached by giving the benefit of the doubt to the young children who wish to join their parents here?

Mr. Carr: It is the general feeling that we must have a pretty firm policy of control but that it must also be fair. The rules must be there and they must be firm, but I certainly want to look at claims for special treatment, and I will look into the particular case raised by the hon. Member.

Sir D. Renton: Is not the question asked by the hon. Member for Oldham, East (Mr. James Lamond) a strong argument for not bringing in any more heads of families than we have to bring in?

Mr. Carr: As I have explained, and as I thought was well known, the numbers of heads of families now coming in has been reduced to no more than a trickle. This is right, and this is what is happening.

Mr. David Steel: May I support the question of the hon. Member for Oldham.


East (Mr. James Lamond) and ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will look at the practice of administering the rules for dependants who fall just above the automatic age limit for entitlement to entry? Does he agree that it is important that we do not produce an unnecessary break-up of families? I respect the view that we cannot allow in people who are coming basically for work and settlement rather than as dependants.

Mr. Carr: I will certainly look at any particular case. As I said at the end of my Answer, I am not prepared to prevent the reunion of families.

Mr. John Fraser: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his last remark is extremely welcome and that the hon. Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison) should not get excited about one month's immigration figures any more than about one month's balance of payments figures?

Mr. Biggs-Davison: I am not excited.

Mr. Fraser: Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the relationship between the number of dependants coming into this country and the number of heads of households coming in is in the ratio of about 4:1 and that there is no direct relationship between one month's figures for heads of households and one month's figures for dependants?

Mr. Carr: I think the hon. Gentleman is about right as far as I can see from the figures he gave.

Fire Precautions (Public Buildings)

Mr. John Fraser: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will undertake a review of fire fighting arrangements for hospitals and other public buildings.

Mr. Lane: I have no reason to believe that the arrangements made by local authority fire brigades for fighting fires in such buildings are in need of review. Fire precautions, including internal fire-fighting arrangements, are primarily the responsibility of the public authorities concerned, but the advice of the local fire authorities is freely available.

Mr. Fraser: As recent tragic events show that when a building is protected

for the purposes of security it is often made more dangerous from a fire-fighting point of view, will the hon. Gentleman make sure that every public building has good access for fire brigades? Will he also ensure that when alterations are made which may cause a fire risk there is complete consultation between the fire authority and the public authority involved?

Mr. Lane: I hope that that always takes place and I will see whether it can be made even closer. Following the tragic events at Coldharbour Hospital, there is a public inquiry going on which will be taking account of this point. We shall do all we can to make this apply to public buildings generally.

Race Relations Board

Mr. Fry: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is satisfied with the workings of the Race Relations Board; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Lane: The Board has the Government's confidence in carrying out its extremely difficult duties.

Mr. Fry: In view of the circumstances, such as those known to my hon. Friend and affecting one of my constituents, who has suffered considerable mental anguish together with financial loss, without recompense, as a result of the tardiness of the Board in dealing with a totally frivolous complaint, will he not agree that it is time that this Board, the very existence of which is an insult to the fair-mindedness of the British people, was abolished or at least made legally accountable for losses caused by its ineptitude?

Mr. Lane: The Board on the whole has done valuable work. I am well aware of the particular case to which my hon. Friend draws attention. I know from conversations with the Chairman of the Board that he has very much in mind the need to deal with all these cases as rapidly as possible. I would remind the House that if they are to be dealt with fully, pace is not the only criterion.

Mr. Bidwell: Will the hon. Gentleman agree that the Race Relations Board, with its conciliatory role, has a substantial part to play in the future development of racial harmony in this country, and more


especially the bringing about of equal education and employment opportunities? Will he disown entirely the inference in the supplementary question of the hon. Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison) that immigrants have anything to do with unemployment?

Mr. Lane: I have said that the Board has a useful rôle to play and I do not want to go beyond that at the moment on the general question of immigration. This is a very sensitive area and there are difficulties and genuine irritations for individuals of the sort to which my hon. Friend the Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison) has drawn attention. I hope that the House will accept that the Board is apt to be criticised from all sides and I feel that it deserves the understanding and general support of us all in what it is attempting to do. If its work can be improved the Chairman of the Board and its members are anxious to do everything possible to improve it.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: Many people on this side of the House would think that the Board was not too strong but too weak. I wonder whether the Minister has given any consideration to the proposals put forward in the Race Relations Board's Annual Report about ways in which the workings of the Board might be made much more effective and might avoid certain difficulties, particularly the difficulty about having discretion in whether to take up cases and having the right in certain cases to award or to seek the award of damages?

Mr. Lane: We have already given a great deal of consideration to the proposals in the Board's latest Annual Report. Some of them involve fundamental changes and it is too soon to make a definite statement on them. We should wait a good deal longer before taking decisions in order to judge the general public's reaction. However, I am well aware of the point which the hon. Lady made.

Football Grounds, Wales

Mr. Roy Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will consult the Welsh Football Association about the question of ground improvements in line with the Wheatley recommendations.

Mr. Lane: The Home Office has sought the views of the Football Association of Wales, among other bodies, on Lord Wheatley's recommendations, and is now considering them.

Mr. Hughes: Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that the Wheatley proposals may be necessary but that they are very costly, too? Does he realise that the four Welsh clubs in the English Football League are in a very difficult financial position, as is the Welsh Football Association? The difficulties will increase with the introduction of value added tax. Therefore, will the hon. Gentleman prevail on his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to exempt the clubs from the tax?

Mr. Lane: I cannot go into the question of value added tax, which is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. However, on the main point of the Wheatley recommendations, I know that the situation of the four Welsh clubs, with one of which the hon. Gentleman is particularly associated, is difficult. We are looking forward to hearing the views of all those people affected by the report on the implications, including the financial implications, of the report.

Police (Pay)

Mr. Sydney Chapman: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce differential rates of pay in different parts of the country for equivalent duties undertaken by policemen and policewomen.

Mr. Carlisle: Any proposal for such a change woud have to be considered first by the Police Council.

Mr. Chapman: As the city of Birmingham police force is as much under strain as the Liverpool and Bootle police force and the city of Glasgow police force, does my hon. and learned Friend agree that the Police Council should immediately recommend an under-manning allowance for the Birmingham police force? Will he go further and agree that we shall never have sufficient policemen in the areas where they are most needed unless there are differential rates of pay for equivalent jobs in different parts of the country?

Mr. Carlisle: I remind my hon. Friend that the relevant panel of the Police Council considered this matter on 7th March and did not make a recommendation for an under-manning allowance for the Birmingham police force. That force is below establishment, but to no greater extent than a number of other forces.

Vandalism

Mr. Dormand: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what research is being conducted by his Department into the most effective ways of combating vandalism; and what steps he is taking to disseminate the information to all police forces.

Mr. Carlisle: The Home Office is considering plans for research projects to assess the nature and extent of vandalism, particularly in urban areas. The second part of the Question does not yet arise, but the police are well aware that their own presence is usually the best defence against lawless behaviour.

Mr. Dormand: I am glad to hear the first part of the Minister of State's reply, but is he aware that there is greater public concern about vandalism than ever before? I doubt whether there is one hon. Member who does not receive regular complaints about it. The public feels that nothing is being done about it. Does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that some of the generally accepted theories about the causes of vandalism do not fit the facts? Therefore, will he give priority to instituting the kind of research to which he has referred today?

Mr. Carlisle: I am fully aware of the understandable public concern about the amount of vandalism. The Home Office Standing Committee on Crime Prevention recently set up a sub-committee to establish, as far as possible, the extent of vandalism and to make recommendations for practical measures which can be taken to prevent it.

Mr. John Hall: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that probably the best way of discouraging vandalism and other anti-social behaviour is to increase the number of policemen on the beat, especially in the villages where the village constable seems to be becoming a thing of the past?

Mr. Carlisle: I agree entirely that the best form of deterrent and prevention of all forms of crime is an adequate police force, and I am glad to say that recruitment to the police force has been going extremely well recently. However, the method deployed for policing any area must be left to the chief constable concerned.

Mr. Kaufman: I very much support what the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall) said about the need for increasing police patrols. Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that when I was in my constituency over the weekend I was utterly appalled by the number of representations which I had about vandalism, particularly in slum clearance areas where vandals do such things as stealing lead from roofs and making the remaining homes uninhabitable? Will the hon. and learned Gentleman do everything possible to help the Manchester City police, who are excellent in this respect, to increase their patrols and thus to help these people?

Mr. Carlisle: I am fully aware of the need for a strong police force and that is why I am delighted that the net increase in the size of the police force last year was 3,000, and 1,850 in the first five months of this year.

Oral Answers to Questions — ECONOMIC AFFAIRS (MINISTER'S SPEECH)

Ql. Mr. Ashton: asked the Prime Minister whether the public speech by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on 12th July to the Association of Economic Representatives on economic affairs represents Government policy.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Edward Heath): Yes, Sir.

Mr. Ashton: Is the Prime Minister aware that the Minister said in that speech that the co-operation of the TUC in the fight against inflation was absolutely necessary to relieve the anxieties of the foreign speculators about the floating £? What sort of co-operation does the right hon. Gentleman expect to have after this week's events, and what results does he think his attitude will have on foreign speculators?

The Prime Minister: I expect that the CBI will continue its co-operation and that the TUC will do the same. I understand that the TUC is discussing this afternoon my request for a further meeting as soon as possible.

Mr. John Hall: Will my right hon. Friend explain who or what are "economic representatives"?

The Prime Minister: They are the economic members of the staffs of the diplomatic missions in London.

Mr. Heffer: Is it not clear that the decision of the Law Lords yesterday, which put the trade union movement right back to square one, means that the Trades Union Congress will find it difficult to have any truck with the Government on the basis of continuation of the Industrial Relations Act? Is it not time that the Government recognised that they have put industrial relations in this country in an impossible position and that they must do something about it by either immediately amending the Act or withdrawing it altogether?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTHERN IRELAND

Mr. Molloy: asked the Prime Minister when he next intends officially to visit Northern Ireland.

The Prime Minister: I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave on 4th July to a Question from my hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton (Mr. Nigel Fisher).—[Vol. 840, c. 109.]

Mr. Molloy: Will the Prime Minister consider going to Northern Ireland with the object of encouraging the establishment of a peace council to include people from all walks of life—commerce, management, and the trade unions—which could be chaired by an eminent person such as Cardinal Conway and a Protestant of equivalent status in the Protestant Church in Northern Ireland? The people could then show their allegiance to a new body without being forced to support extremists on both sides.

The Prime Minister: I am always prepared to consider going to Northern Ireland at the appropriate time, but I think that the hon. Gentleman and others recognise that there are certain difficulties

about that. I have a great deal of sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman proposes. The question is whether the moment is right to set up a formal body of this kind. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is in discussion with members of all parties and all faiths on the question of talks on the future organisation of government in Northern Ireland. I hope that much will emerge from that. I will bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman proposes.

Mr. McMaster: Will the Prime Minister consider visiting the homes of those people who were killed or mutilated as a result of the daylight terrorist attacks last Friday on men, women and children in the streets of Northern Ireland? In the light of the complete failure of the Government's political initiative in March to provide adequate protection against such murderous and indiscriminate Republican attacks on men and women in Northern Ireland, will my right hon. Friend ensure that the security forces take the appropriate steps to deprive these Republican terrorists of their sanctuary in no-go areas in Belfast, Londonderry and elsewhere which are still not properly policed?

The Prime Minister: If I were to go to Northern Ireland, I would of course consider whether it was possible to visit those who have suffered and who are in hospital. On the last part of the supplementary question, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has been absolutely right to try to bring about conciliation between the two groups in Northern Ireland. At the same time, the Army has shown from time to time that, when it is necessary for it to take firm action, it does so.

Mr. Harold Wilson: Is the Prime Minister aware that, on the question of when and whether he visits Northern Ireland, I repeat what I said to him last time, that this must be entirely a matter for him having regard to all the factors, security and otherwise, existing there? On the broader advice being given to him following this question, the right hon. Gentleman, recalling Monday's debate, will be aware, I hope, that we on this side of the House have given our full support to the Secretary of State and the policies that he has followed and shall continue to do so so long as he continues with those policies.

The Prime Minister: I thank the Leader of the Opposition for those remarks. I think that there has been general agreement throughout the House that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is right to keep to the path of conciliation, and that where terrorists indulge in their activities it is necessary for the Army to deal with them.

Oral Answers to Questions — INFLATION (TUC DISCUSSIONS)

Mr. Meacher: asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his official talks with the Trade Unions Congress National Economic Development Council Group on policies regarding inflation.

Mr. Skinner: asked the Prime Minister what further discussions he intends to have with Trades Union Congress leaders resulting from the National Economic Development Council joint talks.

The Prime Minister: I would refer the hon. Members to the answer I gave on 25th July to the hon. Members for Nuneaton (Mr. Leslie Huckfield) and Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley).—[Vol. 841, c. 282.]

Mr. Meacher: Following the Law Lords' decision yesterday, is not the Prime Minister aware that a policy of undermining the trade unions' power by exposing them to crippling and punitive fines is inconsistent with the obtaining of a voluntary accommodation from the TUC in income restraint? Does the Prime Minister want to continue his legal confrontation with the unions or to reduce inflation—because he will not get both?

The Prime Minister: I do not know what status the hon. Gentleman has to speak for the TUC. But the TUC has been having these discussions with me. It told me on Monday that it intended to defer them until the question of the five dockers was settled. I have now invited the TUC to resume our discussions, and I look forward to a favourable answer.

Mr. Skinner: Since we now take it for granted that the Prime Minister cannot discuss growth and inflation with the TUC without discussing the vexed question of industrial relations, would not it

be a better idea to take the Official Solicitor along as well? Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that most reasonable people take the view that if we are to have controversy, industrial dispute and what have you for a few weeks and then the Official Solicitor has to come in to sort the matter out, it would be better if he were there from the beginning? Why not give him a job in the Cabinet?

The Prime Minister: My discussions with the TUC are not concerned with the Industrial Relations Act but with questions of the economy. That is why I have invited its representatives to have further discussions.

Captain Elliot: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the fostering of growth and the containment of inflation is as much in the interests of the TUC and the unions as of anyone else? Is not it extraordinary for the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) to suggest that the TUC would not want to discuss these matters?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir, and a large section of very responsible opinion in the TUC recognises this fully.

Mr. Harold Wilson: Is the Prime Minister aware—because this will inevitably come up in any talks which are held—that the Jones-Aldington Report, which the House has now seen, contains a first-class set of proposals designed to remove the anxieties of the dock working community which many of us in this House have the honour to represent through our constituents, and that we consider that the report should be accepted and put into effect? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware, further, that the reason why it has not been accepted so far is the poison which has been injected into the atmosphere by the events of the past week including the attitudes manifested in his arrogant broadcast last night?

The Prime Minister: I am not surprised at the last part of the right hon. Gentleman's remarks because I heard from those who were present with him watching it exactly how upset he was by it. I will not reveal anything more about the right hon. Gentleman's behaviour. I welcome what he said about the Jones-Aldington Report. I myself stated this


in the House during the debate and that the Government were prepared to provide the finance for it so long as there was a return to work in the docks. But I cannot accept the right hon. Gentleman's explanation of why it was rejected. When I read on the tape of those who cheered and danced outside Transport House when they heard that there was to be a dock strike, it seems to me that these are also the same sort of people who refused to accept a request for a truce in their attempt to bully the firm concerned and to get rid of people from another union.

Mr. Harold Wilson: If the Prime Minister had a report from the Chancellor of the Exchequer of what happened in the hospitality room of Thames Television when he was broadcasting, the Chancellor might have reported that I indicated to him that I thought that he was among those outside Pentonville Prison cheering the release, because obviously the Chancellor was pleased by the intervention of the Official Solicitor. As for the Prime Minister's broadcast, I hope that, as a matter of courtesy, I concealed from the Chancellor my utter horror about the attitude that the right hon. Gentleman was showing.

Mr. Grimond: May I assure the Prime Minister that I was spared his broadcast? Nevertheless, I too, welcome the Jones-Aldington Report. When the Prime Minister is talking to both the trade unions and the CBI, will he discuss the question of differentials? It seems to be quite unnecessary that, because lower-paid workers get a rise of 5 or 6 per cent., everyone else must also get it, going right to the top of the salary scale. Surely it is necessary to find a way of increasing the standard of living of lower-paid workers without adding to the top salaries?

The Prime Minister: This was a major item of discussion at our last meeting, and it was agreed to discuss it further at our next meeting. In the meantime, detailed work has been done on it.

Oral Answers to Questions — LEES, LANCASHIRE

Mr. Lamond: asked the Prime Minister if he will pay an official visit to Lees, Lancashire.

The Prime Minister: I have at present no plans to do so.

Mr. Lamond: Is the Prime Minister aware that pensioners in Lees, like those everywhere else, want the right hon. Gentleman to be reminded that they are still waiting for the 75p increase? Even if the Prime Minister is not particularly concerned about their plight, would not it be a good electoral gimmick, if he means to have an autumn election, to double that increase so that at least some people benefited from an election?

The Prime Minister: The two increases that this Government have arranged since we have been in power have resulted in the addition of nearly one-third to the pension. In addition, we have instituted annual reviews, and no previous Government have a record as good as that.

Mrs. Monks: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the vast majority of people in the whole of Lancashire would welcome a visit from him so that they could thank him for the financial and other help that they have had recently? Is my right hon. Friend also aware that this help, plus our natural shrewdness and capacity for hard work, will bring us renewed and continuing prosperity?

The Prime Minister: I think that the step that the Government have taken in regional policy to extend intermediate areas to the whole of the North-West has been widely welcomed by the people of Lancashire. I have had many letters from them, including the local authorities and the North-West Industrial Development Association. I agree that in Lancashire the financial measures that the Government have taken are widely appreciated by people of all parties.

Mr. Lipton: Would not it help save the time of the House, reverting to the Prime Minister's original reply, if he could only let us have a list of all the things that he has no plans to do?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman would then immediately find himself in conflict with the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton), because I should have given a complete blocking answer to all Questions.

Oral Answers to Questions — REPUBLIC OF IRELAND (DISCUSSIONS)

Mr. Biggs-Davison: asked the Prime Minister whether he will take an early opportunity of discussing with the


Prime Minister of the Irish Republic the security of the British Isles.

The Prime Minister: I continue to be in close touch with the Prime Minister of the Irish Republic on all matters concerning our two countries, but there are no plans for us to meet before the Conference of Heads of Government of the enlarged Community in October.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Has my right hon. Friend noted the speech of Mr. Lynch in the course of which he said that Dublin would not allow private armies to use the territory of the Republic to impose their will on the people of Northern Ireland? Is not that recognition of a vital common interest between the United Kingdom and the Irish Republic and of the need for a common strategy?

The Prime Minister: The Prime Minister of the Republic has said this on many occasions in the past. He has certainly said it in talks with me on different occasions. We are completely in agreement about this matter.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: Is the Prime Minister aware that many of the arms that get into the North of Ireland could not possibly originate in the South? Is he taking steps to have discussions with other Governments, and perhaps that of the United States, to make sure that they control things so that the weapons that kill do not get into the hands of the people who kill in the first instance?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. We have had discussions with a number of Governments, both in Europe and elsewhere, on the problem of arms supplies coming from their sources. I believe that almost all of them are genuinely doing everything they possibly can to track down supplies and to the best of their ability they keep us informed. However, no one should underestimate the difficulty of ensuring that nothing gets through.

Mr. Stratton Mills: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that Mr. Lynch is doing everything possible to deal with the Provisional IRA?

The Prime Minister: Mr. Lynch and his Government have introduced stricter legislation to deal with illegal activities. These are handled, as in this country, through the courts themselves, and Mr. Lynch

and his Government have no control over their courts. This is a matter for the Government of the Republic, and it is for them to decide how best they can handle the Provisionals and the threat in their country.

Mr. Orme: Is the Prime Minister aware that all the political parties in the Republic are showing great courage in standing up to the Provisional IRA? In an effort to improve relations between the United Kingdom and the Republic, will the Prime Minister consider sending a senior Minister to visit Dublin in the near future so that issues of mutual interest can be discussed between the two Governments?

The Prime Minister: In his speech the Prime Minister of the Republic particularly emphasised that relations between his Government and this Government and between the two countries were very good. Only at the end of last week we had a visit by Dr. Hillery to London during which he had full discussions with my right hon. Friends. If it were to become necessary for a Minister from this side to have discussions with the Government in Dublin, no doubt that could be arranged; but I do not think that either Government feel the need to supplement anything that is already going on all the time. We are in very close contact. I was glad the Prime Minister of the Republic emphasised that in his speech.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Harold Wilson: May I ask the Leader of the House if he will indicate the business for next week and his prognosis of the possible time and arrangements for the Adjournment of the House?

The Secretary of State for the Home Department, Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Robert Carr): The business for next week will be as follows:

Monday, 31st July—Supply (29th Allotted Day): The Chairman will immediately put the Question on all outstanding Votes.

Debate on a Motion to take note of the Order on Electoral Law in Northern Ireland.

Motion on the Northern Ireland Health and Personal Social Services Order.

Tuesday, 1st August—A debate on the industrial situation which will arise on a Motion for the Adjournment of the House.

Motions relating to the White Fish (Inshore Vessels) and (Research and Development Grants) Orders.

Adjourned Second Reading of the Land Charges Bill [Lords], which is a consolidation Measure.

Wednesday, 2nd August—Second Reading of the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill.

Thursday, 3rd August—Remaining stages of the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill.

Remaining stages of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill [Lords].

Consideration of Lords Amendments to the Gas Bill.

Friday, 4th August—Remaining stages of the Companies (Floating Charges and Receivers) (Scotland) Bill [Lords].

Motions on the Parliamentary Commissioner, the Comptroller and Auditor General, Members' Travel Language Studies, and the Northern Ireland Finance and Electoral Law Orders.

Monday, 7th August—Debate on a Motion to take note of the Second Report from the Select Committee on Expenditure, together with the subsequent evidence published by the Defence Sub-Committee.

Remaining stages of the Horserace Totalisator and Betting Levy Boards Bill and of the Land Charges Bill [Lords].

Mr. Speaker, the House will wish to know that, subject to the progress of business, it is hoped to be able to propose that the House should rise for the Summer Adjournment on Wednesday, 9th August, and resume in the week of 16th October.

Mr. Wilson: While the right hon. Gentleman is recovering his breath after that extended recital, may I ask him two questions? First, is he aware that we on this side of the House wish to thank him for the readiness with which he agreed to

our proposal that there must be a further debate—I regret the necessity for it—on industrial relations next week and the way he has accommodated this into a very difficult parliamentary timetable?
Secondly, while the right hon. Gentleman cannot perhaps announce a date at this moment, will he take note that on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House—I do not mean the Wednesday series of Adjournment debates, but the Motion that the House on rising on such a date shall come back on another date—it will be convenient for the House, in accordance with our usual practice, though there have been precedents under both recent Governments, that this should take place not on the Wednesday of the Adjournment but on another day? We understand why sometimes it has been necessary under both the previous Labour Government and this Government, but will he do his best to ensure it is accommodated before the Wednesday so that the whole of Wednesday is available to hon. Members to discuss issues which you, Mr. Speaker, select for that purpose?
Finally, will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the debate on the Consolidated Fund Bill under the new rules and to some extent under the old is a debate for back-bench Members of Parliament who, subject to the rules which you, Mr. Speaker, lay down and the Ballot, are free to raise any matter within the whole area controlled by the Government and the Consolidated Fund Bill?

Mr. Speaker: On the last point, I shall be giving a ruling later.

Mr. Carr: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for what he said about us finding time quickly for a debate on the industrial situation. I am sure it is right that the House should debate matters of that kind as quickly as possible.
On the Motion for the recess, I will certainly do my best to see that whenever it is debated it is not on the Wednesday. I cannot give an absolute guarantee, but I very much hope to succeed in that.
On the Consolidated Fund Bill, subject to the ruling to be given by Mr. Speaker, I confirm it is a day for back benchers.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Regarding tomorrow's business, my right hon. Friend will have noticed that there are no fewer than 10 new Clauses to the Industry Bill,


a dozen Government Amendments, and the possibility—indeed, the probability—of upwards of 30 separate debates. In the light of this, is it not evident that if we are to aim to complete the Bill tomorrow the House will be kept sitting until a very late hour indeed? Will he not rule out the possibility of completing the remaining stages of that Bill on another occasion?

Mr. Carr: I have noticed these things to which my hon. Friend draws my attention. We must await Mr Speaker's selection of Amendments before we know what business lies before us. When we come to the business we shall simply have to see how we get on. As I said last week, there are times in the year when we must regard Friday as a day for heavy and serious business.

Mr. Loughlin: At the risk of being tedious and repetitious, may I again draw the attention of the Leader of the House to the scandal of high land and house prices? Does he agree that he has had every opportunity, by virtue of the number of occasions that the issue has been raised in this House, to have a debate on it? Why does he not ask his right hon. Friend to tell us precisely what the Government are prepared to do to help folk who cannot get houses?

Mr. Carr: I am glad to say that the number of folk who can get houses is going up.—[Interruption.] I think that is a fact. The price of houses is a very important matter. We have had a number of debates on this matter in the few months since I have been Leader of the House.

Mr. Pounder: May I ask my right hon. Friend when the Bill to enable a plebiscite to be conducted in Northern Ireland can be expected to be presented to the House? If this widely sought plebiscite is to be held in the autumn, as has been promised, surely the legislation has to go through before we rise for the Summer Recess?

Mr. Carr: I cannot give my hon. Friend any information about that at the moment, but my right hon. Friend will keep the House informed.

Mr. Strauss: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what action he proposes to take on the report of the Privileges Commit-

tee on the appropriate appellation in this House of the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Lord Lambton)?

Mr. Carr: I am aware of this matter. There is no question of a debate before we rise for the Summer Recess, but I shall consider it.

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: Has my right hon. Friend yet had time to consider the report of the Procedure Committee dealing with the Family Planning Bill, and does he expect to find time for the acceptance of this and for the remaining stages of the Bill?

Mr. Carr: I am considering it, and I think I can say that in this case most interested Members would wish for an opportunity for the House to take a vote on the outstanding matter. I shall see what I can do when we come back from our recess.

Mr. Russell Kerr: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been drawn to the Early-Day Motion in the names of my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) and others seeking to remove from office the Registrar of Trade Unions?

[That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying Her Majesty, that She will be graciously pleased to remove Mr. R. F. Keith from the high office which he holds of Chief Registrar of Trade Unions and Employers' Associations.]

In the light of reports that the union concerned, ASTMS, has plans to take the matter to court, has the right hon. Gentleman any statement to make to the House?

Mr. Carr: Any statement to the House would not be a matter for me. We are debating the industrial situation generally on Tuesday.

Mr. Wilkinson: While appreciating most warmly the earnest efforts which my right hon. Friend is making to expedite business so that we may go away for a holiday early, may I ask whether he and the Procedure Committee will address themselves to the question of getting all our business done in future at a sensible hour so that Members can get some proper work done, instead of going round looking like zombies, half drugged through lack of sleep?

Mr. Carr: I do not know what other hon. Members find, but I find that even when the House rises I have to continue to work considerable hours, and I think that anyone who is a Member of this ancient House will always have to do a lot of work at night.

Mr. Rowlands: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it was widely thought that there would be a debate on Welsh affairs next week? This, clearly, is not now possible. Will the right hon. Gentleman say when this debate will take place, especially as this year we shall have the largest number of school leavers out of work that we have had for years?

Mr. Carr: I am aware of the convention that at some time we should have a debate on Wales, but I cannot commit myself at the moment.

Mr. Redmond: Can my right hon. Friend say when there will be a debate on the White Paper on Metrication, which has been hanging around for quite a long time without any democratic, parliamentary decision being taken on it?

Mr. Carr: I know that, but I must say "not before the Summer Recess."

Mr. Leonard: May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to Early-Day Motion No. 413?

[That this House deplores the continued delay by the Secretary of State for the Environment in taking action to repeal the Small Tenements Recovery Act 1838, despite his having promised to do so more than a year ago, and the continued use of this discredited measure by local authorities, including the Bulling don Rural District Council, to secure the arbitrary eviction of council tenants.]

The Motion deplores the failure of the Government to take action to secure the repeal of the Small Tenements Recovery Act, 1838, despite the fact that they promised to do so more than a year ago, and despite frequent assurances given by Ministers that this order would be laid before the House shortly. Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that it is laid within the next week, so that there is some possibility of debating it in this Session of Parliament?

Mr. Carr: I am assured by my right hon. Friend that he hopes to lay the order before the Summer Recess.

Captain Orr: My right hon. Friend says that he has no information about the publication of the legislation dealing with the Northern Ireland referendum. Will he at least undertake that it will be considered by the House before we rise for the recess; otherwise it will not be possible to hold the referendum in the autumn?

Mr. Carr: I do not think that I can add to what I have said.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: May I draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to Early-Day Motion No. 436, which refers to holdings by leading members of the GLC in companies concerned with the development of London?

[That this House considers it undesirable that members or friends of the Greater London Council shall hold stocks and shares exceeding £500 in value in any company concerned with the development of any part of London.]

In view of the revelations in Private Eye and in the Evening Standard this week, would it not be a good idea to have a debate next week on the whole question of holdings by elected persons in this House and in municipalities and the influence which that can have on the development of London?

Mr. Carr: I have noted the hon. Gentleman's Motion, but I cannot offer any hope of a debate in the next week or two.

Mr. Harold Wilson: In view of the pressure on the right hon. Gentleman for an announcement about a referendum in Northern Ireland, will he continue to give no such assurance? Is he aware that to give such an assurance, or to give assurances about early action on this, in the serious state of Northern Ireland could easily lead to further difficulties and troubles and to a further hardening of attitudes which it is the task of the Secretary of State—which we all support—to try to mollify and not exacerbate?

Mr. Carr: I am concerned with the arrangement of the business of the House, not with policy in Northern Ireland. I can only confirm what I have said about business.

Mr. Ramsden: With reference to my right hon. Friend's reply to my hon.


Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg)—I may, of course, have misunderstood it—is it not a fact that for the Government, in connection with a Private Member's Bill, to give time for a vote, as opposed to a further stage with proper debate, would be somewhat unusual, and might, to say the least, set a precedent?

Mr. Carr: This is a difficult matter. The Select Committee on Procedure has looked at it, and I shall not be able to do anything before the autumn. I shall consider carefully what is the right thing to do, but I remind my right hon. Friend that a debate has taken place and, as I understand it, all that is lacking from a procedural point of view is the actual Division.

Mr. Ron Lewis: During the proceedings on the Carlisle and District State Management Bill an undertaking was given that from time to time there would be progress reports to the House. We have repeatedly questioned the right hon. Gentleman's Department on this issue, and a statement was promised before we rose for the Summer Recess. May we have some indication of when a statement will be forthcoming, because a number of my constituents are living under a cloud?

Mr. Carr: My other self tells me that there will be a statement before the Summer Recess.

Mr. Stratton Mills: My right hon. Friend's statement on the referendum in Northern Ireland will be viewed with grave disquiet. May we have an assurance that the debate on Monday will be drawn in such a way as to allow a much broader debate to include the referendum, particularly in the light of the Secretary of State's assurance of 29th June which strongly implied that it would be held in September or the early autumn?

Mr. Carr: With regard to Monday's debate, I gave an undertaking to the House that there would be a whole day to debate the subject of PR in Northern Ireland. I do not think that I can, or should, go back on an undertaking.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Reverting to the business for Monday week, both on Second Reading and in Committee on the

Horserace Totalisator and Betting Levy Bill the Minister said that its purpose was to help a lame duck to get out of difficulties; but the board has now published the fact that it is going to make a large profit. No one wants the Bill except the poor racehorse owners. May I suggest that the Minister could save time by dropping the Bill completely and dealing with other business?

Mr. Carr: The hon. Gentleman can suggest it, but I do not accept his suggestion.

Mr. Skinner: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that by saying that the House will return in the week beginning16th October he is creating difficulties for the Table Office, and thereby for Members who wish to table Questions? It means that until a specific date is announced no Questions can be tabled to the Table Office for any day during that week? Will he, as speedily as possible, clear up the matter?

Mr. Carr: As soon as the House has agreed to the recess arrangements I shall arrange for immediate consultation about the new roster.

Mr. Atkinson: Will the right hon. Gentleman persuade the Prime Minister that it would be better if he—that is, the Prime Minister—came to the House at 11 o'clock in the morning, rather than the Secretary of State for Employment, to make an announcement about the docks situation?

Mr. Carr: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has heard that remark, but I am sure he will think it appropriate, if a statement is needed, for it to be made by the Secretary of State for Employment.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Is my right hon. Friend aware that neither the Leader of the Opposition nor anyone else opposed the First Reading of my Bill providing for a referendum on the Border? Is my right hon. Friend aware that I do not believe that Her Majesty's Government will not fulfil their undertaking in this matter, but that I shall, if necessary, feel free to legislate again?

Mr. Carr: I note what my hon. Friend says, but I am afraid that I cannot add to what I have said.

Mr. Greville Janner: In the Queen's Speech the Government undertook to introduce legislation in this Session to protect consumers and to ban spurious guarantees and warranties. I was assured by the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor that this would be looked into. Nothing has been done. When, if at all, is it proposed that time be given for this matter?

Mr. Carr: Possibly this may be, in this Session, the casualty of some of the other long debates that we have had.

Sir P. Bryan: When will a statement be made on the future of industrial training?

Mr. Carr: I cannot tell my hon. Friend precisely the date, but I think that I can assure him that it will be before the recess.

Mr. Whitehead: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for what he said in reply to the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg) about my Bill. The Select Committee on Procedure referred to this as a return to precedent if Government time were found for this vote. May I ask about the pledge given by the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor—namely, that Government time would be found in this Session for a debate on the experimental televising of Parliament—and ask what has happened to that debate?

Mr. Carr: Yes, I am very conscious of this, because I specifically took on this commitment from my predecessor as Leader of the House. I am disappointed not to see any scope for it before we rise for the Summer Recess, but I hope that we shall have it very soon afterwards.

Sir Gilbert Longden: Referring to the question asked by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), it is not only a question of the roster that we want to know about. Questions have been tabled for 10th August, for instance. When will they be able to be re-tabled? Will my right hon. Friend say whether we shall resume on 16th or 17th October?

Mr. Carr: I cannot at present, but I take the point that there is a problem here and I shall do my best to solve it as quickly as possible.

Mr. Harold Wilson: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that the Motion which the House has to pass, which he said he would try to table before the final Wednesday, will state the dates. Will he table that Motion at the earliest possible moment, whenever it is to be taken, so that hon. Members can table Questions without waiting until the last minute?

Mr. Carr: The Motion will give the precise date. My trouble is that I cannot yet be sure of the precise date on which we think the House needs to return.

Mr. John E. B. Hill: As business questions on Thursdays usually last not less than 20 minutes and sometimes half an hour, will the Leader of the House consider the desirability of taking ministerial statements before business questions? He will recollect that last week a very important statement was made by my right hon. Friend on Northern Ireland. It might have been for the convenience of the House had it been taken before business questions, as out of ministerial statements may arise some question proper for the business statement.

Mr. Carr: I shall consider what my hon. Friend says. It is a matter for the convenience of the House. I always thought that the reason why the business question was a business question and not a statement was in order to give it priority over other statements because that was thought to be the wish of the House as a whole.

Mr. Dalyell: In view of the new damaging uncertainties facing the subcontractors in the British nuclear power industry, are we to get the promised statement on the Vinter Committee's Report and, in particular, if not that, at least on the next British nuclear power station, which may be at Stake Ness?

Mr. Carr: I hope that my right hon. Friend will be making a statement in the very near future.

Mr. Michael Cocks: Will the right hon. Gentleman try to avoid in future bringing on Government Measures after Opposed Private Business, even though he may be advised that the Government Measures are supposedly non-controversial.

Mr. Carr: The Select Committee on Procedure is at present looking into the question of Opposed Private Business. and I shall bear the point in mind.

Mr. Guy Barnett: Will the Leader of the House say whether we are right to assume that the Museums and Galleries Admission Charges Bill has been dropped? If we are, may we congratulate the Government on that decision?

Mr. Carr: I am glad to tell the hon. Gentleman that he is quite wrong to make such an assumption.

Mr. Raison: When can we expect a statement on the reorganisation of the National Health Service?

Mr. Carr: I take note of what my hon. Friend says, but I am afraid that I cannot, off the cuff, give any date; but I shall bear it in mind.

Mr. J. T. Price: Reverting to a previous question about the televising of the House on an experimental basis, and before the right hon. Gentleman responds to the blandishments that we have previously endured, is he aware that such an experiment has already taken place some years ago in their Lordships' House and it proved to be a complete disaster? I and other hon. Members in all parts of the House would utterly resist any further attempts to turn this place into a flea-pit.

Mr. Carr: I have heard our behaviour described as being similar to that of a fourth form and other places which I shall not mention, but never before have I heard mention of a flea-pit. But this will be for the House to decide. I think that there is a general view in the House that this should be debated. There will, of course, be a free vote, and it will be up to hon. Members to express their opinion.

Sir Robin Turton: Will my right hon. Friend correct a previous reply in which he suggested that the Select Committee on Procedure was looking into the question of Opposed Private Business, which would be outside the Committee's remit? The Committee is receiving a memorandum on the different times at which Private Business is taken, which is another matter.

Mr. Carr: I apologise to my right hon. Friend, who is Chairman of the Select Committee on Procedure. I accept that I got it wrong. But the matter will be examined.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps it would help if I informed the House that for the debate on Wednesday, 2nd August, on Second Reading of the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill hon. Members may hand into my office by 9.30 a.m. on Tuesday, 1st August, their names and the topics they wish to raise. The Ballot will be carried out as on the previous occasion. An hon. Member may hand in only his own name and one topic.
The debate on the Second Reading of this Bill is, in the words of Erskine May on page 729 of the 18th Edition
commensurate with the whole range of administrative policy.
It covers, for example, all the main estimates for the current financial year and the revised Estimates presented since then (in House of Commons Papers 198, 313 and 314). It will be in order, on Second Reading, to raise any topic falling within the compass of these Estimates. I shall put out the result of the Ballot later on Tuesday, 1st August.

BRITISH RAILWAYS (FINANCE)

The Minister for Transport Industries (Mr. John Peyton):: I will, with permission, make a statement about British Railways' finances. Despite the board's efforts to cut costs, its financial position has deteriorated over the past year. Price restraint reduced its income: the coal strike caused a loss of traffic and reduced income by £18 million: £10 million of business was lost through the subsequent rail pay dispute: the high level of the settlement has added to the board's costs.
As was always clear, the board will, therefore, need to make fare increases in September to help meet the cost of the settlement.
Even so, the board now expects a deficit of £40 million in 1972—over and above the amount of £27 million which we provided in the Transport (Grants) Act—and a comparable sum in 1973.


The board, at my request, has since the autumn been reviewing its long-term prospects. It is clear that some new financial support will be needed and that new legislation will be required. There is an immediate need to meet the board's cash flow shortfall, which amounts to some £50–£60 million over the rest of 1972. A Supplementary Estimate will be presented to the House in due course in respect of this requirement. Any sums needed meanwhile will be issued from the Contingencies Fund.
I have also today given my consent to proposals from the Railways Board for restructuring its field organisation. These proposals and the reasons for them were described in the board's Second Report on organisation which I laid before Parliament in 21st April. They involve the creation of eight territories to replace the present structure based on regions and divisions, which no longer meets today's requirements. The changes are expected to result in further staff reductions of between 4,500 and 6,500 but this should largely be accounted for by normal staff turnover. The board estimates that the changes will save at least £10 million a year in administrative costs after full implementation. The board has assured me that it will do its utmost to minimise the adverse effects and inevitable inconvenience to its staff.

Mr. Bradley: The House will want to study the full implications of the right hon. Gentleman's statement. Will he consider issuing a White Paper setting out in greater detail what is involved in the Railways Board's calculations of its long-term prospects? Can he say by what amount fares will be increased in September, and will the legislation which he has foreshadowed provide for permanent powers to authorise grants to the British Ralways Board on a long-term basis, as the Opposition suggested earlier this Session? 
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his consent to the proposed field organisation will cause dismay to British railways staff, who have endured countless organisational changes during the past quarter of a century, none of which has yielded the promised results and most of which have proved counter-productive?
Did the right hon. Gentleman take into account that management at all

levels of British Railways will now be diverted from its prime objective of obtaining more traffic while it is implementing this massive and suspect scheme? What period of time does the board estimate it will take to introduce the new organisation to which the right hon. Gentleman has consented? What capital costs will be incurred by the board in providing new and additional office accommodation in places like Birmingham, Cardiff, Manchester and Newcastle?
Finally, does the Minister accept the need to maintain the viability of British Railways without imposing undue hardship on the travelling public on the one hand and its employees on the other?

Mr. Peyton: If the hon. Gentleman will be good enough to tell me a simple way of maintaining the viability of British Railways, I shall be delighted to give him a ready hearing. I will certainly consider issuing a White Paper on the long-term proposals as soon as I have received them from British Railways. I do not expect this to be until the autumn.
On the question of the fares increase, the proposals of British Railways are for an overall increase of 5 per cent., averaging about 7½ per cent. for passengers and 2½per cent. for freight. I recognise that no field reorganisation of this kind is palatable to those principally concerned and those who will be adversely affected, but the board must be allowed reasonable freedom to restructure its management, and that is what I have given it.

Mr. Edward Taylor: Will my right hon. Friend say what will be the implications of the reorganisation on employment in the Scottish railways system? Secondly, as increased business in the future will depend on capital investment at present, is the Minister aware of the concern amongst railway people at the successive cuts in the total amount of capital expenditure over the last few years, and will he assure us that an adequate investment programme will be provided for the railways?

Mr. Peyton: On the question of an adequate investment programme, the Government have always been ready to respond to reasonable requests from the railways in this respect. I do not think that my hon. Friend need have great


apprehension about the effect of the reorganisation on employment in Scotland. I will look into it and write to him.

Mr. David Steel: Will the Minister say whether the semi-autonomous position of the Scottish Railways Board will be affected by the reorganisation? Can he give us, out of the 4,500 to 6,500, a figure for the reduction in staff north of the border?

Mr. Peyton: No, Sir. It would be very difficult to break down that figure at the present stage. The railways are able to give only a fairly rough estimate over the country as a whole.

Sir Gilbert Longden: Why is the only method that seems to be known to our nationalised industries for solving their problems to increase the price for a reduced service? Would it not help to attract custom if for a change British Railways were to reduce fares and freight rates?

Mr. Peyton: I am sure that if British Railways were persuaded that that was the way to raise revenue they would readily resort to it, but over the years the management of the railways has not proved to be all that optimistic.

Mr. Harold Walker: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his announcement will be a shock in my constituency of Doncaster, an area of high unemployment, which will lose another 450 jobs? Will he tell us the time scale of the rundown of manpower? The righthon. Gentleman said that natural wastage would account for it, but, according to the original proposals published by his Department, once approved the changeover will start immediately. Will he say what this involves?

Mr. Peyton: The fact that the changeover will start immediately does not mean that it will be finished immediately. My advice from the railways is that redundancies will largely be looked after by natural wastage. I realise, of course, that to Doncaster and other cities which are possible headquarters this decision must be a disappointment. The Railways Board has seen fit to make its choice for its territory headquarters, and it is not right for Ministers to seek to intervene

in what are basically management decisions.

Mr. J. H. Osborn: Will my right hon. Friend say to what extent this blow has been caused by the railwaymen's wages increase reducing job security? To what extent will the reduction in employment in the move from Sheffield to York be met by natural wastage? Apart from the cost to the railwaymen and their families, to what extent will the reorganisation be paid for by the travelling public and to what extent by the taxpayer?

Mr. Peyton: It is a little early to say. The judgment of British Railways is that the proper fares increase at the moment, in an attempt to make a contribution to remedying their difficult financial position is the figure that I have just quoted. I do not think that I can comment further.

Mr. David Stoddart: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his announcement will merely compound the despair felt in my constituency over railway policy generally? Is he undertaking studies within his Department on an overall transportation policy in which the financial and social aspects of the railways will be considered? On the railway field organisation, is the Minister satisfied that the railways have carried out their duty under Section 45(2) of the 1968 Act to consult properly and in full the people employed in the industry?

Mr. Peyton: Yes, Sir. I believe that the railways have carried out the duty laid on them by the Act to consult. I say again that I realise that these changes are not acceptable to those who are adversely affected by them, but it is of little use asking for an efficient railway industry if the board is not free to make what it considers proper changes in its management structure.

Mr. Stoddart: Will the Minister answer my first question? What studies are his Department making on an overall transportation policy, taking into account the financial and social aspects?

Mr. Peyton: Very considerable studies are being made, but I cannot answer in detail now. I remind the hon. Gentleman of what I said in my statement—that ever since the autumn the board has been making a very considerable study of its long-term problems. I hope to have


a report from the board by the end of October, and thereafter as soon as possible to report my conclusions to Parliament.

Mr. McLaren: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his statement on reorganisation will be received with disappointment in the West of England and that on merits the proper place for the Western regional headquarters is Bristol and not Wales?

Mr. Peyton: I understand the disappointment of those who represent Bristol consituencies. My own position in the West Country leads me perhaps to have additional sympathy with their arguments. But I would not like my hon. Friend to have the impression that Bristol and other cities concerned here will be totally bereft of railway employment and job opportunities. For instance, the area manager responsible for all operations will continue to be in Bristol, as will the area civil engineer, the area signals and telecommunications engineer, the area mechanical and electrical engineer, and the area passenger sales manager. In other words, a substantial railway operation will be based at Bristol.

Mr. Ron Lewis: To what extent were the trade unions consulted before the right hon. Gentleman drew up his statement? Can he give a greater breakdown of the number of redundancies grade by grade? Can he give an assurance that grant-aided lines will not be touched in any way, shape or form?

Mr. Peyton: I could not give a blanket undertaking of the kind requested by the hon. Gentleman in relation to grant-aided lines. Secondly, it is not possible for me at this stage to break down the estimated reduction in staff. It would only be misleading if I were to try. Thirdly, the trade unions concerned have been fully consulted by the board, by my Department and by me.

Mr. Ian Lloyd: I think that many hon. Members will sympathise with my right hon. Friend in this dilemma, which in political terms could perhaps be described as almost hereditary as well as inherited, and some of us are particularly dismayed at the prospect of what seems to be an unlimited commitment by the Exchequer, which may be regarded as a cornucopia

from which the consequences of wage-cost inflation through the country are being met. Is there any foreseeable end to the process?

Mr. Peyton: My hon. Friend has asked me a question which I should love to be able to answer. He referred to heredity. Whatever I may have inherited, I would claim to be exempt from any accusations as far as heredity is concerned.

Mr. Benn: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the feeling in Bristol about the decision to move the territorial headquarters is not confined to that city alone but is shared by hon. Members representing many constituencies west of London and in the West Country, who feel, as many other nationalised industries firms have done, that Bristol is the natural centre? Is he further aware that the responsibility for this decision rests firmly on him, since he has a statutory obligation to examine the proposals made to him? The right hon. Gentleman said staff had been consulted. A large number of staff at Bristol feel that they were not given adequate information on which to argue their case. There is a very strong case for him to state publicly and clearly the reasons which led him to uphold the board's decision, because under the Statute it is his responsibility, and this should be clearly seen.

Mr. Peyton: The claim of Bristol as a natural centre was powerfully represented to me by many of my hon. Friends, as well as by the right hon. Gentleman, representing West Country constituencies. On the other hand, even though hon. Members representing that city have not been very vocal in their applause today, I have had some representations from Cardiff, where there is a good deal of originating freight traffic. I cannot deny that I am under a statutory obligation, but I hope that no one will accuse me of any disrespect to Parliament when I say that this particular obligation was conferred on a Minister in one of Parliament's very unusual lapses from high common sense and total wisdom.

Mr. Adley: My right hon. Friend let the cat out of the bag about originating freight traffic. It is not necessary to sit and watch trains go by in order to run


a railway efficiently. There is great concern amongst trade unionists and others in Bristol and throughout the West Country about the way in which this matter has been handled. The phrase "natural wastage", if it refers to Bristol and Exeter people having staff jobs in Cardiff and being expected to travel two hours a day, is not going to satisfy them. Can my right hon. Friend, despite his assurance to my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. McLaren), be more precise as to how many jobs are likely to be lost, either through natural wastage or through effective wastage through people being offered jobs which it is impossible for them to operate from their homes in the West Country?

Mr. Peyton: I have given all the information I can at present about jobs and job opportunities which will remain in Bristol. I know my hon. Friend's very strong views about this. I would only add that when I first had a look at this problem one thing which was clear to me was that of all the possible candidates three cities were going to be pleased and silent and the rest would be disappointed. I have seen no reason whatever to intervene in what I regard as a series of management decisions simply because they are announced together.

Mr. Adley: Political decisions.

Mr. Palmer: In addition to the other points made by other hon. Members representing Bristol, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is prepared to receive further representations, or is the whole issue now closed?

Mr. Peyton: I do not think that any Minister can ever say that he is not prepared to receive further representations, because he gets them whether he is prepared to receive them or not. I have given my approval to this reorganisation, and I hope that British Railways will now be free to get on with the task which has perhaps been too long postponed, with uncertainty protracted.

Mr. Ridsdale: How much of the fare increase of 7½per cent. is due to the inflationary rail and coal mining awards?

Mr. Peyton: I made the best effort I could to apportion the causes of the

present situation. I do not think that I can go any further. Dividing up a bitter pill is not really a profitable occupation.

Mr. Urwin: In view of the deep concern quite properly and frequently expressed in the House about the intolerably high levels of unemployment in the development areas, and the fact that a number of people will now have to be decanted again from the industry, will the right hon. Gentleman indicate whether he has undertaken discussions with other members of the Government, especially the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, about planning alternative job opportunities for those people who are now to be displaced? Will he further undertake, realising, as he will do, that the Northern Region particularly cannot afford to be denuded of any more jobs in administration, that the interests of the Northern Region will be fully safeguarded in the reorganisation?

Mr. Peyton: I very much hope so. I remind the hon. Gentleman that York is in the Northern Region—

Mr. Urwin: No.

Mr. Peyton: It is in the north of the country. Rivalry for this headquarters was between York, Sheffield and Don-caster, Two of them were bound to be disappointed. The decision of the board was that York was the best place for the new territorial headquarters, and I see no reason to challenge that view. Of course these proposals have received the consent of my right hon. Friends. I will call the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment in particular to what the hon. Gentleman has said.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Does the average of 5 per cent. in fares reflect the unfettered judgment of the Railways Board as to what the market will carry, or has it been affected, either voluntarily or involuntarily, by the CBI's restraint scheme, and, if it has, how much of the £40 million additional subsidy reflects that fact?

Mr. Peyton: The matter has been fully discussed with the CBI, but the proposals now put forward are those which emanate from the Railways Board as to what the traffic will bear.

Mr. Bagier: Does the Minister agree that the railways are fed up with being reorganised? He says that he has consulted the trade unions; but has he reached agreement with them? As to the financial balance of British Railways, is it not time that the Government appreciated that the railways are a public service and that if the whole of the public is to be provided with a public service as such it is only fair that the whole of the public should provide some money towards that undertaking?

Mr. Peyton: I do not quite know what the hon. Gentleman means when he says that "it is only fair that the whole of the public should provide some money". The public provide a great deal of money now.

Sir H. d'Avigdor-Goldsmid: My right hon. Friend said in reply to an earlier intervention that he wished that someone could give him a clue how to make the railways viable. Let me commend to him the idea that he should apply to the Treasury for a loan of public dividend capital to meet the new capital charges which are about to fall on the railways. The advantage of a public dividend capital advance is that no interest need be payable on it until such time as the railways are viable. Perhaps my hon. Friend will give that idea his consideration.

Mr. Peyton: I will certainly give any idea put forward by my hon. Friend my most careful consideration, though it would be wrong for me to conceal my own very considerable anxiety as to the capacity of the railways to earn a proper reward even in the long term.

Mr. Walter Johnson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this new field organisation will cause real hardship and anxiety to many thousands of white-collared workers, not only those who are to be made redundant, but also those—probably about 1,000—who will have to move their homes for the third time in five years? Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise what hardship this entails in matters such as schooling and housing?

Mr. Peyton: Of course I do. I realise that it will be a source of hardship and inconvenience to individual members of the staff. The railways management has

the responsibility for managing the railways. I do not. I add this counsel to the hon. Gentleman. If Ministers are to start taking on themselves the responsibility of fair detailed management decisions, the final plight of the railways will be far worse than it is now.

Mr. Ronald Bell: Did not the four private companies meet their operating costs from revenue in every year, including 1926, even if they did not always pay a dividend on their equity capital? Does not my right hon. Friend's statement show that the nationalisation of the railways was a ghastly mistake? Is there any hope of getting them back to private enterprise?

Mr. Peyton: If I were to disagree with my hon. and learned Friend, I am sure that he would be deeply surprised and very shocked. I certainly do not disagree with him. I have never made any bones of my belief that public ownership applied to great industries like the railways is a fiasco.

Hon. Members: Oh!

Mr. Bidwell: Is the Minister aware that that last reply was completely idiotic? Having regard to the nationalisation of the railways at the beginning of the industrial period in Germany, for example, his remark flies in the face of history. By that reply he must be suspect as a transport Minister. I suggest that a transport Minister in this day and age will be judged by his ability to balance the proper usage of road and rail. It is no way to face the future of our transport problems to see the railways run down in any shape or form. To what extent does this statement mean that there will be less usage of railways both in regard to passengers and in regard to freight? Will it lead to an idiotic situation such as has already been developing on the Southern Region, where well-laden passenger trains are cut out?

Mr. Peyton: It does not lead to anything of the kind the hon. Gentleman suggested. All I am suggesting is that public ownership has not been proven to be a very great success. [Hon. Members: "That is different."] I am moderating my language to match the sensitivities of hon. Members opposite. Public ownership has not been a great success. I personally very greatly regret that hon.


Members opposite, having watched the results of their own policies, still go on pursuing nationalisation as the golden solution to all our problems. I am certain that it makes for rigidity in industry and it exacerbates all the problems of management. I have done my best while I have been in my present office to support and sustain those who have the heavy responsibilities of running British Railways; and I shall continue to do so.

Mr. Mulley: I am sorry to press the Minister further on this, but will he not take an opportunity to withdraw his remark about "fiasco", because public confidence in a Minister responsible for not only one great nationalised industry—the railways—but many others is bound to be shaken by the thought that the Minister is perhaps deliberately trying to destroy the industries for which he is responsible. I know the right hon. Gentleman well enough to know that that is not so, but will he not give a clear undertaking that he will do his best both for the public and for the employees of these industries while he holds his present position?

Mr. Peyton: I do not think that the undertaking for which the right hon. Gentleman asks is necessary. Of course I can give it in any event. All I said just now was that, looking at it from a national point of view, I find the addiction of the Labour Party—[Hon. Members: "That is not what the Minister said before."] It is what I am saying now. [Interruption.] I retreat from nothing. I find the slavish addiction of the Labour Party to public ownership very difficult to comprehend. In its conseqeuences overall public ownership has been disastrous.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is an Opposition Supply Day. I must protect their Scottish business.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[28th Allotted Day],—considered.

SCOTLAND

Mr. Speaker: Before calling upon an Opposition Front Bench spokesman to move the Motion in the name of the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. Harold Wilson) and some of his right hon. and hon. Friends, I would inform the House that I have selected the name of the Amendment in the name of the Prime Minister and his right hon. Friends.

4.29 p.m.

Mr. Bruce Millan: I beg to move,
That this House records its alarm at the highest July post-war figure of unemployment in Scotland—138,544; and condemns the failure of Her Majesty's Government to take timely and appropriate action to stem the rise in Scottish unemployment, to maximise the benefit to Scotland of the discovery of North Sea oil, and to ensure a modernised and expanding Scottish steel industry consistent with the skills and facilities uniquely available in Scotland.
The background to the debate is the appallingly high number of unemployed in Scotland. We have given it in our Motion. The figures for July, which have just been published, show that the more favourable trend over the last two or three months from even more catastrophic figures has not been sustained, yet the only prospect for any kind of relief from a winter of utter disaster in Scotland could come from the maintenance of that trend. It is now clear that, whatever happens over the next few months, there will be an appallingly high rate of unemployment and hardship in Scotland during the coming winter.
As the result of a recent Question by my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars), we have the unemployment figures covering a fairly long period. From these figures it is plain that we have experienced in Scotland recently, and especially over the last two years, 1971 and 1972, unemployment on a scale such as we knew only in the years before the war.
The consequences for Scotland would be unthinkable if there were any sense


of acceptance of these very high figures, and the debate today is another indication of the seriousness with which the Opposition regard the situation and of our determination to have everything possible done by the Government to reduce the figures.
The solution to our high rate of unemployment depends, in the last analysis, on the overall success or failure of the Government's economic policy. Since we have many other things to discuss today, I shall not comment on the Government's economic policy in general, but I must say that the exchanges which we have just had with the Minister for Transport Industries demonstrate, first, the frivolous attitude which a certain number of Ministers have taken to some of our important industries and some of our serious problems, and, second, the failure of Government policy in the whole field of economic management. The state of industrial relations as we see it this week and in prospect over the weekend and the next few weeks is another demonstration of the Government's complete failure in their general handling of the economy.
The first essential from the Scottish point of view is that we have successful economic management which produces a strong and expanding economy. But, even if that were there—and it is conspicuously not there at the moment—the need for a strong regional policy would remain. The Government have a sorry record on this since June, 1970.
In October, 1970, they reversed the Labour Government's incentive policy, a decision which they took without proper study of the consequences, without proper study of how the regional incentives previously applied had operated in practice, and without completion of a study which had been set up by the previous Labour Government into the whole question of regional incentives. It was a decision taken only for doctrinaire reasons. We warned at the time that the result would be an appalling increase in Scotland's unemployment problem, and it is no comfort to us to say once again that our forecasts and warnings in October, 1970, have proved all too well founded.
We now welcome the reversal of the present Government's policy, in the Budget and the Industry Bill which is still going through the House, but in the two

years since October, 1970, Scotland has suffered badly from the changes made at that time. Of the measures in the package which we particularly welcome, I mention, first, the reintroduction of investment grants. The Government have re-established the Labour Government's policy on that matter. I remind the House that a feature of the October, 1970, measures to which we directed special criticism was the abolition of those investment grants. We welcome also the measures for selective assistance, and the Government's general conversion to interventionism in the economy.
There is some doubt about the Government's package because of Britain's proposed entry into the European Economic Community, a matter which some of us hope to pursue at rather greater length tomorrow in the remaining stages of the Industry Bill. There is that shadow over the package of investment and regional incentive proposals now introduced.
The Government boast that expenditure on the new package of proposals will be greater than ever before. There are three comments to be made about that. First, in terms of incentive, while the new package is certainly better than that which it replaces, it is little different from the pre-October, 1970, situation which the Government inherited from Labour.
Second, what matters is not so much the total expenditure on regional incentives as the effectiveness of the measures adopted. I shall say something about that later. The point was made by the Expenditure Committee in a report just available when it made the criticism which I have made, that the Government changed their policies in 1970 without any real study of the situation and the effectiveness of different regional incentive measures.
Third, one naturally expects a far greater effort from the Government today, since unemployment is so much worse. It is not much to the Governments credit that they should now be able to say that they are spending more on regional incentives, when it is they who have produced easily the worst post-war unemployment figures on record. Not only that; the areas in the United Kingdom covered by regional incentives are now more extensive than ever before, again


because of the substantial deterioration in the unemployment situation. Therefore, one would expect any Government incentives to be more expensive than before.
Having made those preliminary comments, I shall now briefly give a number of criticisms of the Government's package. First, the differential between development areas and special development areas, which has been reduced to 2 per cent. of capital grants, means nothing in terms of influencing industry to locate in the special development areas as distinct from the development areas generally.
Coming from a special development area, I am grateful, naturally, for any additional assistance given there, but I believe that a differential as small as that makes very little difference, and I think that it would have been even better if the Government had chosen to have a wider differential, or, if they were not willing to do that, it would almost have been better, I think, to abolish the differential altogether and to use the additional money made available thereby in more effective means of regional assistance. I shall come to one or two examples of that in a minute.
Second, we deplore the change—which has been less noticed than it ought to have been—in industrial development certificate policy. The previous limits, at 5,000 sq. ft. in the South-East, East Anglia and the Midlands and 10,000 sq. ft. elsewhere, are to be raised to 10,000 sq. ft. in the South-East and 15,000 sq. ft. elsewhere. No justification has so far been given for that change. Perhaps the Secretary of State for Scotland will give a justification today. One can only say that it seems to indicate a weakening of intention with regard to industrial development certificates, which we very much deplore.
Third, the incentives as we now have them are very much related to capital projects. In my view, they are too capital-intensive. Indeed, the safeguards in a number of the Labour Government's measures, providing that in certain circumstances payments would be related to employment prospects, have been removed, so that the empoyment criteria have been virtually removed in the Government's new package.

Mr. J. Bruce-Gardyne: I have a good deal of sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's present line of argument about the capital-intensive nature of incentives. But is he saying that the Opposition are opposed to the ending of the employment link?

Mr. Millan: I am not saying quite that. I was about to say that there are certain cases in which it seems that, under the present package, large sums of public money will be expended with no discernible public benefit in employment or in anything else. There should be restrictions placed on the scheme in circumstances of that sort. That is a theme which we pressed in the Industry Bill Committee and which some hon. Members on both sides of the House will be pressing in the Report stage tomorrow. I have not time to go into the details, but the general attitude of the Opposition has been made clear in Committee.
The other side of the penny is the decision to abolish or phase out the regional employment premium from 1974. The decision was first reached in October, 1970, and the first great flush of enthusiasm proved disastrous to the development areas. The decision was then made to abolish REP altogether. We now have a modification of that decision because it will be phased out after 1974. In our view either REP in its present form should continue or it should be replaced by another form of labour subsidy. REP is not necessarily, the best or the only kind of labour subsidy.
The package is too much directed towards capital-intensive projects and it is not sufficiently aware of the need to encourage employment in development areas. Furthermore, it is still far too directed, and indeed exclusively directed, to manufacturing industry and does not take account of the importance of office employment and service employment.
There is another matter which we tried to impress upon the Government in Committee—

Mr. Ian MacArthur: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Millan: No. We have already lost half-an-hour. [Interruption.] The point about selective employment tax is irrelevant to this matter; my right hon.


Friend can deal with it when he winds up the debate for the Opposition.
Moreover, the package is exclusively directed towards private enterprise. Private enterprise always has to take the initiative and there are certain regional incentives available, but in the present Scottish situation private enterprise by itself, regardless of the kind of regional incentive packages which we may have under this Government or any other Government, will not do the job.
The case for a State holding company of one kind or another is incontrovertible, particularly in the circumstances in Scotland. The Expenditure Committee Report—an all-party report which has been published only today—emphasises the tremendous advantages in direct Government involvement and expenditure through a State holding company or similar organisation. I hope that point will be taken seriously by the Government because they have not yet done so. It is part of our policy that there should be a State holding company with a pronounced bias towards development in the regions, and particularly in Scotland.
I turn to one or two individual industries. First, may I deal with shipbuilding. I shall not recount the whole history of the UCS situation, except to say that, while we welcome the conclusion of that saga, we make the point that the solution at the end of the day was much more expensive than it need have been. It was the end product of a period of uncertainty, hardship and apprehension which would have been avoided if the Government had taken the right decisions in the first place.
We welcome the extension of assistance to shipbuilding, which is a matter upon which we have continually pressed the Government from June, 1970. However, we still have had no indication from the Government whether they will accept the proposals—or produce their own alternative proposals—of the Chamber of Shipping and the British Shipping Federation to have an incentive to persuade British ship owners to invest by placing orders in British shipyards. The great difficulty about the present situation is that, while grants to shipbuilding are being given to the industry, there is a dearth of orders. It is a well-known fact that many British shipping companies are holding back on orders which are so necessary for our yards because there has

been no Government statement on what proposals they may have to help the industry by placing orders in British yards.
It is desperately important that we get such a statement, and I hope that we shall get it today. If we do not, I hope that we shall have a statement tomorrow. Certainly we must get it before the House rises for the Recess because the uncertainty is damaging to British shipyards.
My preliminary comment on North Sea oil is that it is scandalous that we have not had a full-scale debate on the matter in the House. We have had Adjournment debates through the initiative of my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) and we have had little bits of debates introduced into other wide debates, but no full-scale debate in the House on North Sea oil. What is more, we have had no statement of Government policy on North Sea oil. Nor have we had a White Paper, although we have asked for one on a number of occasions. We have been promised information, but we have been given no substantial information either about the actual situation or about the Government's policy in the present situation.
Our criticisms fall under a number of heads. First, we do not believe that the Government have yet sufficiently appreciated the change in the situation which has arisen because of the now acknowledged discoveries of large quantities of North Sea oil. They have not appreciated that those discoveries change the whole situation and that they should change considerably Government policy. The Government still adopt a rather deferential approach to the oil companies, as if the oil companies are doing us all a great favour by investing their money in the North Sea. That is not the situation. We are doing the oil companies a favour in that they are being allowed to exploit far too much of a considerable national asset. It is about time that the Government became less deferential and adopted a much tougher approach towards licensing, exploitation and other matters.
The point is put neatly in an editorial in the Glasgow Herald of Monday, 24th July, which says:
So gentlemanly is the British approach compared with that of the main established


petroleum producing countries that there seem far greater dangers of missing out on the benefits than of a few reasonable demands frightening the companies off.
I agree with that view. The first change which I should like to see in Government policy is a much harder and tougher attitude towards the oil companies. That change of attitude should apply in a number of ways. It should relate to how the licences are granted and the terms on which the licences are given. One criticism, which applies to some extent to the previous Government as well as to the present Government, is that the licences have been granted to the oil companies on terms which are not sufficiently attractive to the national Exchequer, and that the companies have obtained the licences too cheaply. They know they have done so. They know that they have done extremely well out of a lackadaisical Government who are unaware of the real potential of the situation in the North Sea.
I am not impressed by the argument put forward by the Government spokesmen that we either get the maximum amount for giving out licences or something less than that with the imposition of conditions on the oil companies. That is not the choice which has to be made. I see no reason why we should not get higher licence figures than we have got so far and at the same time impose stronger conditions.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Gordon Campbell): Will the hon. Member say whether some of the oil companies operating now under licences issued in 1969 when the Labour Government were in office received those licences from a lackadaisical Government?

Mr. Millan: I said that some of the criticism I was making applied to the last Government as well as to the present Government. I also said at the beginning that the present Government have not sufficiently realised the change which has occurred in the whole situation since 1971. It is not possible to compare the situation today with what happened in 1969 and 1965 because we now know that there are substantial reserves under the North Sea, and therefore the potential profits to the oil companies are very much higher than anyone could have known in 1965 and 1969. 
The mere fact that the Secretary of State made that intervention demonstrates that either he has not sufficiently appreciated, or that he has not appreciated at all, the change in the situation over the last year.

Mr. Patrick Wolrige-Gordon: Would the hon. Member advocate the setting up of the State-controlled holding company that he is speaking about to take over the exploration and exploitation of North Sea oil?

Mr. Millan: I would like to see it involved and if the hon. Member will read the new Clause which was put down for the Industry Bill he will see that that point was included. There is insufficient participation by public enterprise in the exploitation of North Sea oil resources and the conditions laid down in this regard by the Labour Government have been abandoned by the present Government. It is an example of handing over a considerable national asset to private enterprise. The same criticism also applies to the conditions of the licences. There is no condition stipulating that oil must be refined in the United Kingdom, much less in Scotland, and it seems likely that in a few years' time when the oil begins to flow a good deal of it will flow out of Scotland to be refined overseas. That is an utterly appalling situation.
There has been no substantial effort to write into the licensing agreements provisions to ensure the maximum use of United Kingdom supplies of equipment, pipelines and the rest. Some of the figures which were given by Lord Balogh in the debate in the House of Lords on 7th June about this aspect make absolutely horrifying reading. The Government seem to be saying that the rate of exploitation of resources should be for the oil companies to decide. I take an entirely different view. The rate of exploitation is principally and fundamentally a matter for the Government and the oil companies should fit in with Government decisions. I do not believe that the maximum rate of exploitation will necessarily provide the maximum benefit to the United Kingdom or Scottish economies.
We want to see the maximum exploitation consistent with the maximum benefit to the national interest, and the two concepts are not necessarily the same. There


is a considerable danger that if it is left to the oil companies without stringent conditions being laid upon them by the Government, exploitation will be at a rate which is of the maximum advantage to them but not necessarily to the United Kingdom.
A good deal has been done to interest Scottish industry in the opportunities open to it and I have no doubt that the Minister will read out some of the things that have already happened in Scotland, and we are grateful for them. But there was bound to be some Scottish involvement in the situation even in the worst circumstances and with the least amount of effort by the Government. Participation is a good deal less than it should be and it is a good deal less than it would have been if there had been considerably greater emphasis by the Government over the last year or 18 months on the maximum amount of Scottish and United Kingdom participation. More than anything else we need a White Paper explaining Government policy and we need to debate it in full in a way which is not possible in today's debate.
The statement by the British Steel Corporation a week or two ago that there was to be a loss of 7,500 jobs without any compensating development to provide alternative employment came as a considerable shock in Scotland. We accept that modernisation must come in the steel industry. We accept that modernisation by itself means a diminution in a number of jobs. But we are not willing to accept, particularly in view of present Scottish unemployment, 7,500 redundancies or, for that matter, any redundancies, without providing compensating alternative employment in the industry. All this ultimately depends upon the total capacity of the industry. The Government's attitude has been to limit production within the range of 28 million tons to 36 million tons. Quite simply that means that the BSC, as confirmed in this morning's newspapers, wants 36 million tons and the Government want it to plan for 28 million tons.
The Government's proposals have considerable implications for the Hunterston scheme. This was made explicit almost for the first time in Lord Melchett's statement yesterday as reported in this morning's Glasgow Herald. He said that the absolute minimum level of production

which would permit a major expansion like Hunterston—and there is no guarantee that development will take place, and if it does that it will take place at Hunterston—is 33 million tons. That means that if the Government keep the BSC down to 28 million tons there will be no green field development. In that event the Secretary of State for Scotland's great concern and preoccupation with Hunterston, and his statement that he would stake his reputation on what happens there, will be a hollow sham.
If I am wrong I hope the Secretary of State will contradict me. I am quoting what Lord Melchett said at his Press conference yesterday in introducing the latest annual report of the British Steel Corporation. The real danger in Scotland is that we shall have neither a green field site at Hunterston nor developments which will maintain anything like the present level of employment in the industry. We shall have what will ultimately be a declining industry with Scotland's share of the United Kingdom steel industry falling and with a considerable drop in the number of job opportunities in Scotland. If that is not to happen the British Steel Corporation at the very least must be allowed to increase its capacity by 1980 to 36 million tons and the green field site development, when it comes, must be at Hunterston and not at one of the other sites that have been mentioned. There is no doubt that if there is to be a green field site, the advantages of Hunterston are overwhelming compared with those of other possible sites.
To sum up, we have had a lack of information about the steel industry, a lack of decision by the Government, a lack of openness with the House and the country, just as we have had about North Sea oil and so many other aspects of Government economic policy. Over the past two years, because of the misguided and mischievous regional policies adopted in October, 1970, a disastrous situation has been created in Scotland, with hardship for the unemployed and hardship for Scotland generally.
Of course the Government have learned some of the lessons of the past two years, but they have neither learned enough of them nor learned them quickly enough. It may have been a painful experience for them to learn those lessons, but it was nothing like so painful as the experience


that the Scottish people have had over the past two years because of the failures of Government policy. It is because of the failures of that policy and because we do not believe that they have the capacity or the will to produce alternative policies which would go anywhere solving Scotland's economic problems that we are censuring them to-day.

5.1 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Gordon Campbell): I beg to move to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
'welcomes the huge public works programme authorised by Her Majesty's Government to stimulate employment in Scotland; endorses the decision to increase investment incentives to encourage new industry and to expand existing industry, the commitment to the British Steel Corporation scheme for a £26 million ore terminal at Hunterston, the British Steel Corporation's intention to maintain a strong and viable steel industry in Scotland and the provision of £35 million to launch Govan Shipbuilders Limited; and recognises Her Majesty's Government's determination to set Scotland on course for a new period of industrial expansion including additional expenditure on harbours, roads and other infrastructure related to the opportunities opened up by the North Sea oil discoveries'.
The whole House will be concerned about this month's increase in the absolute numbers of unemployed. The total registered as unemployed in Scotland increased by 9,000 between mid-June and mid-July. This increase, however, is less than the rise in the number of unemployed school leavers and adult students seeking vacation employment, more than 8,000 school leavers and more than 4,000 students. Seasonally adjusted, the July unemployment rate is lower than that for June, and this is the third consecutive month in which the seasonally adjusted rate has fallen.
Earlier this year the House debated the nature of the unemployment which we have had in recent months and which the Government deplore. In those debates I pointed out the shedding of labour which had taken place on such a scale and the rise in productivity. The Government are very concerned about the situation and have taken early action to alleviate it.
I should like first to deal with the part being played by the additional public

works programme, for which hon. Members opposite pressed and which in Scotland has amounted to £70 million. The purpose of the programme is to provide extra employment, mainly in the construction industry, in the period to March, 1973. Our aim has been to increase the demand of the public sector for resources which would otherwise have remained idle by sanctioning extra capital spending for a period in the immediate future on an unprecedented scale. The programme, which was put together last autumn with the ready co-operation of the local authorities, which are rightly pleased with their efforts, spans a whole range of services. It is worth remembering that this special programme has been added to the normal capital programmes, including spending by the nationalised industries.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) mentioned the new measures for regional development announced by the Government in March, and some of them are now before the House in the Industry Bill. The boost which the extension of free depreciation to all industries throughout the country, with the Government's other measures to assist industry, will give industrial growth and modernisation should be of considerable benefit, not least to the capital goods sector in Scotland, which is an important part of our industry.
The regional development grants at the rate of 22 per cent. in the special development areas and 20 per cent. in the development areas for investment in new plant, machinery and buildings will provide the basic incentive to growth in Scotland. These grants make no discrimination, as there was before, between existing and incoming industry. This is welcome in Scotland because it remains a source of grievance. The hon. Gentleman criticised the differential between the 22 per cent. and the 20 per cent., but previously there was no differential in the rate of grant paid except in relation to incoming industry. Although the incoming industry did not use it very much, it was none the less a source of grievance, and I think that all hon. Members realise that.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: The right hon. Gentleman referred to the capital goods sector. When shall we have a decision on Stake Ness which will affect


many parts of Scotland, even the right hon. Gentleman's own, particularly remembering that the sub-contractors want some kind of decision on the future of the nuclear industry? Indeed, this is a decision affecting the whole of the nuclear industry.

Mr. Campbell: The hon. Gentleman has already asked that question today of the Leader of the House; I was here at the time. He was told that a statement about the nuclear industry would be made soon. He was told that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry hoped and expected to make a statement soon. The hon. Gentleman will have to wait, but I hope that it will not be long.

Mr. William Ross: The right hon. Gentleman knows quite well that Stake Ness is the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Scotland.

Mr. Campbell: Certainly; I know that very well. But the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) asked when there would be a statement on the nuclear industry as a whole. I know that the nuclear plant industry is concerned to know the results of the Vinter Committee's work. He has had an answer to his question, and I give it again for the benefit of those hon. Members who were not present at Question Time.
These grants will apply equally to modernisation projects and expansions and new projects. Another radical departure is that the grants will not be taken into account in the calculation of entitlement to tax allowances on capital investment, and that is a considerable improvement on the previous system of investment grants.
In addition to the regional development grants, the Industry Bill will provide selective financial assistance towards industrial investment. Like the grants, this will not be restricted to projects which create additional employment, which is an important feature for Scotland. Although the hon. Member for Craigton criticised this, it will greatly simplify the system.
In addition, a large measure of industrial devolution is taking place. In Glasgow there is now an industrial

development office with an industrial director who will work in close collaboration with the DTI regional director for Scotland. This industrial development office has a positive and active rôle in promoting industrial growth and modernisation. It will provide advice and assistance to industry across the board. As it has full access to the expertise within the National Industrial Development Executive, it will be associated with national initiatives taken by that executive in securing expansion and growth in British industry.
The regional development grants will in future be administered in Scotland, so that there will exist in Scotland a centre with considerable financial resources at its disposal.

Mr. James Sillars: The right hon. Gentleman has mentioned the director. I wonder whether he is aware that Mr. Dennis Kirby has declared that Scotland's unemployment will fall during this coming winter? Does he agree with that view?

Mr. Campbell: I know that the hon. Gentleman has not been in the House for long, but he has a Question on the Order Paper and he ought to know that it would be wrong for me to anticipate it.
The subject of North Sea oil is important, and the hon. Member for Craigton dealt with it at some length.

Mr. William Baxter: rose—

Mr. Campbell: I must get on or other hon. Members will not have the opportunity to speak.

Mr. Baxter: Before the right hon. Gentleman deals with North Sea oil—

Mr. Campbell: I do not have time to give way.

Mr. Baxter: Mr. Baxter rose—

Mr. Campbell: I know the hon. Gentleman's constituency is land-locked, but North Sea oil could have an important impact for the good of his constituency, like others.
The discovery of oil deep below the bed of the North Sea is probably the most important economic development for


Scotland this century. I do not underestimate it in any way, as the hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Douglas) knows very well. Last year he accused me of speaking about oil all the time, of drawing too much attention to it. I am glad to see that his Front Bench now realises the importance of this new industry.
We have a completely new industry in Scotland already, although it will be two years before the first oil can start to flow. It was about 10 years ago that gas was found below the North Sea off the coast of the Netherlands. Since then it has been the policy of British Governments, Labour and Conservative, to proceed as quickly as possible with exploration for hydro-carbons in the Continental Shelf within Britain's jurisdiction. The last two Governments worked out and operated a system of licensing which enabled exploration to be carried out in blocks. Massive investment was needed, and this to some extent governed the pace at which the exploration was extended northwards.
Natural gas was found in the North Sea off the shores of England, and has been successfully piped ashore and distributed. The resources of the international oil industry, both for finance and for equipment, were needed. The National Coal Board and the British gas industry also took part.
When blocks opposite Scotland were reached, oil was discovered in significant quantities. These finds have been made in the past two or three years. Last October BP made the first public announcement of plans to produce oil from the North Sea. This was confirmation that oil had been found in conditions and quantities which made the field a commercial proposition. Both BP and Shell-Esso have announced that they intend to work the Forties and Auk fields.
In the early days, before gas or oil were being discovered in significant quantities, it was a high-risk and costly operation. Both the Labour Government and the present Government avoided any action which would unnecessarily slow up the progress of exploration northwards. Special restrictions might have done that. For example, if the process

had been carried out at half the speed we still would not even be aware of the oilfields off the shores of Scotland. These areas would not yet have been reached by the rigs. The start of the new industry would have been delayed by some years. I believe that the speed of the exploration has been very helpful for Scotland. We need this new industry now to help redress the contraction of older industries and to relieve the consequent high unemployment. To have held up the rate of exploration would have been a disservice to us in Scotland.
Let there be no misunderstanding, however, about the way in which our licensing policy can help British firms. In considering applications for petroleum production licences on the United Kingdom Continental Shelf, the Department of Trade and Industry takes into account the extent of the contribution which the applicant has made, or is planning to make, to the economy of the United Kingdom, including the growth of industry and employment. As part of this, the Government are watching carefully to see that oil companies give full and fair opportunities to British firms. We shall take this into account when any further applications for discretionary licences are considered.

Mr. Dick Douglas: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House the means at his disposal to ensure that the companies give fair treatment to British companies?

Mr. Campbell: The Government see what the companies are doing, and that is taken into account before licences are issued.

Mr. Baxter: Mr. Baxter rose—

Mr. Campbell: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Baxter: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I understood that the Secretary of State was not prepared to give way, but he gave way to my hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Douglas).

Mr. Campbell: Further to that point of order—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): Order. It is not a point of


order. I think the right hon. Gentleman was on the point of giving way to the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Baxter).

Mr. Campbell: The point was that I felt I should move on to North Sea oil. That was why I felt I could not go on giving way on the previous subject.
The rate of exploration is controlled by the Government, because the licences cause applicants to enter into commitments that they will carry out the work within a certain time.
The exploration and development of the North Sea deposits require massive capital investment. So far, companies have invested well over £300 million in British waters to explore and produce both oil and gas. I am told that each hole drilled costs over £1 million, and on average only one in 20 of the holes finds oil in commercial quantities. At the Aviemore conference in February which I attended, it was estimated that the oil industry might have to invest as much as £1,500 million—£150 million a year over the next 10 years—in exploration and production in British waters.
We are still in the early stages of exploring the North Sea and the Continental Shelf all round our coasts. At any given time we can only make assessments arising from the strikes of oil made up to that time. My own guess is that there is still a lot of oil to be discovered, and that estimates based upon our present knowledge will be overtaken as more discoveries are made in British areas of the Continental Shelf.
We should remember that the oil is about two miles below the seabed; that the depth of the water in the North Sea is considerably more than in other waters where similar drilling has been carried out; and that the stormy conditions which must be expected in the North Sea produce additional problems. The situation calls for a technology as advanced as anything needed almost anywhere else in the world. The Americans are the present world experts, but we in Scotland should be able to join in perfecting the new technology and equipment required and make it our business in the future. It is a formidable operation of exploration, and, later, pumping, requiring expertise and resources on an international scale. It is not surprising that man reached the moon before he was able to locate and

pump oil from two miles beneath the North Sea.

Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: I know that the right hon. Gentleman follows the proceedings of Committees, and particularly that considering the Industry Bill. Does he recall the powerful speech of his hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, East (Mr. Laurance Reed) on this point of technology and the failure of Scottish and British firms to supply any reasonable fraction of the amount of material going into the development and exploration of oil? Should we not receive from the right hon. Gentleman today a report from the independent observer appointed by the Shell companies to try to encourage our own people to take advantage of this great exercise and participate in it?

Mr. Campbell: I do not need to do that, because I and others in Scotland have spent many months doing everything we could to encourage Scottish firms to take part in the exercise. I have heard in recent weeks from those closest to industry that some firms in Scotland have taken great initiatives in this matter, and many more are investigating and finding opportunities in the new industry.—[Interruption.] I agree with the hon. Gentleman that no one is satisfied. There is still a great deal to be done. No one will be satisfied until we get the maximum possible in the way of work and business from this new industry.
Although it will be two years before the first oil comes ashore from below the North Sea, the actions and decisions already taken are likely to produce about 7,500 new jobs in Scotland in work connected with this new oil industry. Over a hundred new companies have established themselves in service and supply in and near the city of Aberdeen, involving about 1,300 new jobs. At suitable places along the whole east coast of Scotland facilities are being prepared. Of particular importance are the projects for building production platforms, the installations to be placed over the wells from which the oil will be pumped. The furthest ahead is at Nigg Bay, where Brown and Root has already started building this month what will be the largest production platform in the world.
A similar operation is starting in the Moray Firth at Ardersier. In both cases


the planning procedures were made to operate as quickly as possible, and I was able to give article 8 directions. Within four months of the grant of planning permission Brown and Root had almost completed a mammoth graving dock. At the same time it was also training 50 men in the skill of welding at a special school.
These two projects are expected to produce nearly 2,000 jobs for men, and they will be using large quantities of steel. Because we in Scotland were able to act quickly, and provide help and advice, this important work of building production platforms will take place at these two new installations in the North-East. They might well have gone abroad but for our action.
The new industry should be of immense benefit to Scotland since it requires skills in which Scots excel; for example, engineering, shipbuilding—which can now be applied to platforms and rigs—and seamanship.
Another way in which the Government have been able to step in with speedy help has been by promoting the Harbours (Scotland) Bill. This will ensure that valuable jobs in servicing oil rigs are created and that this work does not go abroad. We had to bring it in quickly. The large bay at Peterhead, hitherto used only as a harbour of refuge, now proves to be ideal for uses connected with the oil industry. In addition, the Government are ready to spend about £3 million there, and we hope that the servicing work can start early next year.
The Opposition seem critical of the Government's rôle in encouraging new North Sea oil developments. Yet their attitude to the Bill when it was before the House was incredible. It being a party which ostensibly appears to recognise that North Sea oil could mean valuable new jobs for Scotland, it was astonishing to see some hon. Members opposite apparently intent upon holding up the pasage of the Bill with every kind of improbable objection. [Interruption.] I must say this because the Motion speaks of maximising the benefits of the oil industry in Scotland. Anyone listening to the debates on the Harbours (Scotland) Bill would presume that the Opposition were maximising their obstructions to the oil developments. Spectators could be

forgiven if they presumed that the Opposition still regard oil as a competitor to coal, to be resisted.

Mr. Douglas: Shame.

Mr. Campbell: Let me turn to the latest Labour Party document—

Mr. Ross: Mr. Ross rose—

Mr. Campbell: I will give way in a moment. I have not finished.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We cannot have two right hon. Gentlemen on their feet at once.

Mr. Campbell: I will give way in a moment. I want to read from the document "Labour's Programme for Britain" which came out about two or three weeks ago. It says "Labour will reverse without compensation the de-nationalisation process carried out by the present Government. In the case of licences to explore for gas and oil in the North Sea, which Labour would have reserved for the public sector, these permits will be taken back as soon as possible."
What possible help can that be to Scotland? Is that the policy of the Opposition? I hope that the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) will come clean and say whether that is the policy. Labour did not do this when they were in Government before. It is totally wrong. In the second round of licensing in 1965 and in the third round in 1969, licences were issued to companies in the consortia. What is the explanation of that statement? What is the message for the industry, for the men on the rigs, if the permits are to be taken back as soon as possible? These men are likely to lose their jobs. Will there be some new nationalised body which will somehow find £1,500 million from the taxpayer? I give way now to the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock.

Mr. Ross: The right hon. Gentleman knew quite well that I wanted to ask him about his remarks on the Harbours (Scotland) Bill and not this. I will deal with these other points when I make my own speech. As for the Harbours Bill, will he tell the House how long we took on Third Reading?

Mr. Campbell: I am grateful for the fact that last night after a considerably longer Report stage and two days in


Committee—a great deal more than was necessary—the right hon. Gentleman did not have a Third Reading. There was practically nothing else to be said about the Bill at that point. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will do what he said and give us tonight an explanation of what this policy statement means. If the country were to suffer the misfortune of another Labour Government —

Mr. Ronald King Murray: May I correct the right hon. Gentleman? He has repeatedly said that this is a policy statement. It is a discussion document.

Mr. Campbell: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Member, who, with his legal mind, has been prepared to give an answer which his right hon. Friend was not prepared to give.
The Government have always recognised the important help which they can give, besides that which I have already mentioned, to new industries through the infrastructure. The port services are essential in the exploration phase of the oil development. These are being provided on an expanding scale. For example, work costing well over £1 million for the improvement of Aberdeen harbour has been authorised for oil industry purposes, and a Government loan of up to 100 per cent. has been agreed. In addition, a grant of about £600,000 is available for the fishing harbour at Aberdeen.
As for housing, a special programme of 700 houses has been arranged, to be built by the Scottish Special Housing Association, in the North-East for the needs of the oil industry, and the expenditure here is about £4 million.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: Over what period?

Mr. Campbell: Dealing with air transport development, over £200,000 was spent last year on improvements at Inverness Airport, which has assumed special importance in view of the number of oil industry developments being established on the Moray and Cromarty Firths. Such public expenditure being carried out now is a most valuable help to the oil industry and a way in which the Government can assist development as a whole. It also

helps Scotland as a whole, particularly with roads, to which I now turn.
We have undertaken, as quickly as technical resources permit, to improve the A9 to Invergordon. This is the main road north to Inverness and beyond, and includes the virtual reconstruction of much of the road between Perth and Inverness, and a new road across the Black Isle and the two Firths. This means spending about £40 million on these improvements to the A9. Earlier this week we announced the building of a new motorway, the M80, between Glasgow and Denny to replace the south-western part of the Glasgow-Stirling trunk road, thus providing a link to motorway standard for the whole length between Glasgow and Stirling. This is a new gateway to the North. The cost will be over £15 million, apart from the section inside Glasgow, which will cost an additional £7 million.
I come now to the steel industry.

Mr. Millan: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves the subject of North Sea oil, will he answer the question about whether it is the oil companies or the Government which are to determine the rate of extraction of oil, and, if it is the Government, how will it be done?

Mr. Campbell: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the licences already place conditions about the speed of exploration. In future licences, should it be necessary, we can control the extraction of the oil. [Interruption.] In future licences we can decide what we want to do. The position is still open. At the moment we are in the exploration stage.

Mr. Ross: Will you do that in future?

Mr. Campbell: Like the hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton and, I am sure, the hon. Member for East Stirlingshire, I would very much welcome the chance to have a debate on North Sea oil. If hon. Members opposite had not, for example, bitterly opposed the European Communities Bill we might have had some time to do this. We have not had that much time. There have been very few opportunities. We would have liked to discuss local government on the Floor of the House. I cannot now go into all the possible provisions of future licences. No doubt I can continue in correspondence with the hon. Member.

Mr. Millan: Why cannot we have a White Paper?

Mr. Campbell: When I was asked by the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock about this I said that I would consider it. I pointed out that I have provided in the Library bulletins and information about what is going on from time to time. A White Paper could only say what the situation was at the moment. But the information which we shall continue to place in the Library will keep hon. Members abreast of the main events.
The Scottish steel industry has been mentioned. This is an industry whose future prosperity is of great concern to the Government. The British Steel Corporation has made it clear in its statements that its aim is to preserve the key position of the Scottish steel element in a strong and viable United Kingdom industry. Clearly, this aim could not be achieved if a high percentage of the industry's output were to continue to depend on methods of steel production which could not compete in technical efficiency or economic operation with modern plants.
It is against that background that the corporation plans a further extension of steel-making at Ravenscraig at a total capital expenditure of £60 million to double its output of liquid steel. This means about 1,000 new jobs. When this expansion programme is complete, Ravenscraig will be fed with ore from the £26 million terminal to be built at Hunterston. As the increased capacity at Ravenscraig comes into use, the open-hearth plants can be phased out. If this did not happen, the Scottish steel industry would be doomed to be a steam-age industry. Hon. Members on both sides of the House concerned with the steel industry accept that we cannot keep the open-hearth furnaces going for years ahead.
The corporation plans also to preserve and update Scotland's most modern rolling mills to enable them to meet world competition, including in particular developments to meet the needs of North Sea oil exploitation. These plans, which include modernisation of the Clydesdale tube works, bring total planned investment in Scotland to nearly £100 million over the next three or four years. The plan is to modernise the industry so

that it will emerge strong and more efficient.
Modernisation must mean reduction in jobs per unit of output. The British Steel Corporation has made known its estimate that its present programme will mean a reduction, but not starting for some time, of between 6,500 and 7,500 job opportunities. That is not redundancies; it is a reduction of job opportunities. [Hon. Members: "Oh."] Some men will retire for reasons of age and for other reasons. It is important to say that, otherwise hon. Members only cause more alarm than need be caused.
The corporation decided that it was right for it to make known this estimate some time beforehand, because I understand that it wanted to clarify the situation when there were a lot of rumours flying around, including rumours that the number of job opportunities lost or redundancies would be as many as 10,000. The corporation has not yet taken firm decisions about the timing of the closure of any plants. When such decisions are taken, I understand that they will be the subject of the usual long period of notice by the corporation and to consultation with all the representative bodies concerned.

Mr. Gregor Mackenzie: The right hon. Gentleman makes much of the fact that there is a considerable difference between redundancies and the loss of job opportunities. I should like to know what is to happen about jobs for the sons of the people who work in the steel industry in Lanarkshire. Job opportunities will not be open to them unless something very substantial is done by the Government now.

Mr. Campbell: I proposed to make that point. Our aim must be a healthy modern industry with an assured future. The Government's concern is to promote industrial expansion in the meantime with good and lasting jobs, both in the steel industry and in the steel-using industries, which are very important in Scotland, and in other industries so that there will be alternative jobs available for those who are made redundant and for the next generation.

Mr. Baxter: I am interested in the question of the industries using steel. I


am seized with the great problem confronting the nail and wire industries of Scotland owing to the decision of the British Steel Corporation to have its basing points in England. Some of us made representations to the Department of Trade and Industry the other day about this matter. Has the right hon. Gentleman any statement to make about it, because if a satisfactory answer is not given to our representations over 2,000 jobs in central Scotland will be affected?

Mr. Campbell: I am well aware of the problem about basing points and that a number of jobs—about the number which the hon. Gentleman has mentioned—are involved. My hon. Friend intends to deal with this subject when he winds up the debate.
I turn to the question of Hunterston. I do not need to tell the House about the advantages offered by the Hunterston peninsula, with its immediate access to deep water for industrial development. It is over—[Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman says that I discovered it. He means that it is over three years since I opened a debate, in Supply time, on the subject. At the end of 1970 I approved the industrial zoning of 2,000 acres of land, including the land for the ore terminal which the British Steel Corporation intends to build.
The corporation is now discussing the details of the financing and construction of the terminal with the Clyde Port Authority. The authority, for its part, is seeking the necessary parliamentary powers for the construction of the marine part of the terminal. These necessary preliminaries should be completed soon so that work on the terminal can start. Hunterston is also one of the few sites in Great Britain suitable for a major new integrated steel works. This option remains open.
I turn to the question of an important steel-using industry; namely, the ship building industry—

Mr. Millan: Does not the right hon. Gentleman propose to comment on the point made by Lord Melchett yesterday that unless we have a steel industry with a minimum capacity of 33 million tons there will not be a green field site anywhere?

Mr. Campbell: The hon. Gentleman knows that the bracket which was agreed

by the Government and the corporation was 28 million to 36 million tons. My hon. Friend will deal with this matter when he winds up, because, as the hon Gentleman knows, the steel industry is in the sponsorship of the Department of Trade and Industry. The option remains open because the bracket is an agreed bracket. For about four years I have seized publicly every opportunity of drawing attention to Hunsterston as a valuable site for industry as a whole, and that is no doubt why the Press has said that my reputation is identified with Hunterston. I am determined that Hunterston shall be used in the best possible way for Scotland's economic welfare.
I turn to the question of the shipbuilding industry because it is an important user of steel. The Government have carried out the pledge which they gave last July that they would support a newcompany—Covan Shipbuilders—to reconstruct shipbuilding on the upper reaches of the Clyde and that they would aim to dispose successfully of any surplus yard. We have carried out that pledge, and we are facing up to the costs. As a result, Govan Shipbuilders Limited has now started trading as a going concern, and it has secured new orders to provide 2½ years work for its 4,300 workers. This is a reduction. There have been redundancies of about 2,000. It was foreseen that this was probably a necessary consequence of the reconstruction. But. fortunately, those shop stewards who had been demanding that there should be no redundancies and that all four yards should remain together dropped their all-or-nothing attitude. I congratulate Lord Strathalmond and those concerned in Govan Shipbuilders on the orders which they have obtained. I am sure that the whole House wishes them well.
There is an important area in Scotland which is experiencing remarkable industrial and commercial activity. I refer to the Highlands and the North of Scotland, whose prospects appear brighter today than ever before in their history. This is very welcome, and the Government are assisting in every way that they can. Besides all the activities in Aberdeenshire related to the oil industry to which I have referred already, Shetland is booming as never before, and industrial expansion is taking place on


the Moray and Cromarty Firths at a considerable rate.
In the area one hears much appreciation being expressed of the work being done by the Highlands and Islands Development Board. It has been successful in helping a number of promising projects and is making full and good use of its incentives, grants and loans.
The Opposition have adopted a carping approach to the measures being taken to promote development in Scotland, and they entirely lack anything constructive in their own attitude. That was nowhere better illustrated than in the speech of the hon. Member for Craigton.
The policies which they propose, as outlined in the recently published discussion document entitled "Labour's Programme for Britain", from which I have read only one small extract, illustrate the barrenness of which I speak. The policy put forward in that document for the North Sea oil industry is completely negative, would bring much of the present exploration to an end, and would be thoroughly damaging for Scotland.
The mercy is that it is most unlikely that those policies will ever be carried out.

5.41 p.m.

Mr. J. Grimond: Debates on Scottish affairs have a common pattern. The Government claim that everything in Scotland is perfect owing to their beneficent activities, and they express astonishment that the Opposition have not moved a vote of thanks. The Opposition take the opposite view.
My main criticism of the Government is that, whatever one may say about their activities, I do not get the impression that the Scottish Office has clear policies on various important areas of economic affairs in Scotland or that it is dominating the scene. For example, the decision about the Upper Clyde shipyards may have been right, but one cannot believe that it flowed from the carefully thought-out policy of the Government. We are told that the British Steel Corporation is doing exactly the right thing for Scotland. But what influence the Secretary of State has had is not clear. I wonder whether he was intimately concerned

with today's statement about the future of Scottish railways—

Mr. Gordon Campbell: I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman heard the statement today. It concerned railways in England, not Scotland.

Mr. Grimond: I am surprised to hear that since the Minister concerned did not say so and indeed dealt with a question asking for information about Scotland. I hope the Secretary of State will be able to confirm that this does not affect Scotland. The Minister for Transport Industries said that he was unable to say how many Scottish railwaymen would be put out of work but that some would be. Does the Secretary of State mean that the Scottish railways are to go on as now, with no redundancies and the same organisation?

Mr. Gordon Campbell: The reorganisation affects south of the border. Scotland is hardly affected.

Mr. Grimond: I am very glad to hear that. It means that there will be no redundancies in Scotland.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: No.

Mr. Grimond: That is a very important announcement. It is not what the Minister said. But we must take it that the Secretary of State knows.
I do not want to exaggerate about the oil situation. I am sure that the Scottish Office is doing a lot of work and that the oil companies are well aware of their social responsibilities. However, they are in business to make profits. It is not criticising them to say that they wish to maximise their profits. I get the impression sometimes that the Scottish Office regards them as visiting royalty and that roads have to be made and red carpets laid down for them. I think that the Scottish Office should fight its corner a bit harder sometimes.
There are many confusing features about the Scottish scene at the moment. We have high unemployment at a time of high inflation. There is insufficient investment at a time when the demands of the oil companies are very large and when inflation should be encouraging investment in Scotland. To my mind, there is insufficient planning for our entry into Europe, and it is only lately


that we have woken up to the potentiality of the oil discoveries.
The first area to which the Scottish Office should give a great deal of attention is the change in the general working of the economy. No longer can we push up employment simply by inflating the economy. The old Keynesian argument has proved to be suspect. We have to look very carefully at the structure of unemployment in Scotland. I heard the Secretary of State say that the present figures were inflated by unemployed school leavers and university graduates. If that is so, it is serious. These people will leave Scotland. They will not appear in the unemployment statisticsagain. Scotland is constantly losing school leavers and university graduates, and they are the very people for whom we should make a special effort to find jobs.
Secondly, we have to look at the need for a shorter working life and a shorter working day. I urge the Scottish Office to have consultation with both sides of industry as to how this can be achieved while at the same time not increasing costs too much. We are reaching the situation where machines are taking over from men.We have to find a way of sharing the benefits that machines give to us and not throw half the work force on the street and allow the remainder to benefit.
I turn to regional policies. They are too narrow and, here again, the Scottish Office appears not to know enough about their effect. The latest report from the Expenditure Committee points out that every new job created costs £750. Is that the figure for Scotland, and is this very satisfactory in terms of its results upon the Scottish economy? I share the view that more should be done by direct Government intervention. It is necessary to find more employment at the top of the scale. We have only recently got the Forestry Commission to move out of London. There is a great deal to be said for the major part of the British Steel Corporation and those who deal with oil and coal taking most of their offices out of London and putting them into areas like Scotland which are closer to the raw material and which require that sort of employment. Again, I think that the Government can use their purchasing capacity, which is very great,

deliberately to put contracts into development areas to a greater extent than they do at present.
I stress the need for integration in development policy. It is a matter not only of giving jobs but of housing, amenities, education and raising the standard of communities. Let us look at what has been going to Clydebank. Brown's yard has been taken over to make oil rigs. That gives us a breathing space. But presumably when the oil ceases to flow that shipyard may become redundant again. What steps are being taken to think out now a policy for the development of Clydebank over the next 25 years, and what is to happen at the end of that time?
We constantly criticise the Victorians for not caring about the future, for leaving great coal dumps and spoil of all sorts over the country, for disrupting human relations and casting men aside when they had done with them. Clyde-bank is a very good test of whether we can do better, and we should be planning now for the future.
I turn to infrastructure. In the report of the Expenditure Committee emphasis is placed on the improvement of the infrastructure if we are to raise the standard of development areas and get more employment to them. In my constituency there is still a grave housing shortage, and this at a time when there are unused resources throughout Scotland.
Turning next to transport, obviously freight is of prime importance. Freight charges are possibly the greatest handicap under which my constituency suffers. But it is interesing to read what Lord Stokes has said about the situation of British Leyland at its Scottish factory. It costs the company £18 to transport the component parts of each five-ton truck from England and £40 to send the assembled vehicle back again. He reckons that that is one of the biggest drawbacks to getting industry to Scotland, and he stresses the need for better transport facilities. The Government should put far more effort into bringing down transport costs. They cando few things to benefit the Scottish economy more than to give a subsidy in that direction.

Mr. Dalyell: Will the right hon. Gentleman, on the other side of the coin,


concede that Bathgate has many advantages over Leyland's other factories, both in relation to the facilities offered by local authorities and, indeed, by the environment which the work-people and executives can enjoy?

Mr. Grimond: Yes, there are compensating advantages. There is a work force available in Scotland. Nevertheless, in today's world transport and freight are important for Scotland and will be more important when we go into the EEC.
There is a strong case for having a central airport in Scotland. What is the present policy regarding the air services in Scotland both internally and internationally? What is to happen to the feeder services in the north which are of the greatest importance because of the oil discovery and, indeed, for the general development of the area?
There is the question of local services in rural areas. Many local railway lines have been closed. We have been told that that has led to substantial economies. Is it not time that some of the advantages of these economies were put back into the areas by way of assistance to local bus services? At the moment this is left to the local authorities, many of them very small and without large incomes, which are unwilling to undertake the obligations.
I am not convinced that the Scottish Office has got round to the paramount importance of the oil discovery. If my figures are wrong, I trust the Secretary of State or somebody else will correct me. On the face of it, Britain has a pretty bad bargain. I understand that British Petroleum paid £39 million for 24 square miles of Alaska. I understand that the United States has had £16,000 million from its gas-oil offshore. The American Government take 16⅔ per cent. as a royalty on well-head profits. Britain takes 12½ per cent. Adding the profits tax, in the USA it amounts to 71 per cent., in Holland 66 per cent. and in the United Kingdom only 52½ per cent. I have no desire to cripple the oil companies, but if they can afford to pay that much elsewhere I suspect they could pay it here and it could be put back into generally stimulating the economy of Scotland. I fail to see why, when we have this enormous asset which every-

body agrees lies off our shores, we should not get more benefit from it.
We have been told for many years that fuel is more expensive in Scotland because of the transport costs. Now that it is available there it does not seem to have come down in price. I do not think the benefits to our economy are at all commensurate with what we might expect.

Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: Would the right hon. Gentleman care to add to the interesting figures he has given the enormous amount the American Government spend on the protection of their oil companies in other parts of the world?

Mr. Grimond: I will if it is relevant. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that bit of information.
Norway has a 17½ per cent. participation, not in the dangerous business of exploration but after the oil has been discovered. It is all very well for the Secretary of State to say that the oil companies have borne all the risks, but they have borne all the risks in the Norwegian field. The Norwegian Government are right to put in 17½ per cent. of the capital for the production and to take the profit on it. So, without going as far as this interesting discussion document from the Labour Party, there is a case to be answered by the Government—I do not particularly blame the Scottish Office—for saying that the oilfields have been sold on easy terms and it is not clear at present that Scotland will benefit from these discoveries as much as she ought.
The Secretary of State spoke about the importance of the new technology and how Scotland may play a leading part. Will whoever winds up tell us what is happening? Have the universities or the technical colleges been given large sums to develop oil technology? I know that something is going on. I should like to know what the Government are doing to encourage it and raise our effort in technology to the standard about which they speak. I understand that ultimately this oil discovery may supply all the oil necessary for Britain and that the consequent investment might be about £2,000 million. Yet the Secretary of State talks about only 5,000 new jobs. This seems


a very small number for a major discovery of this kind.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: I think the right hon. Gentleman misheard what I said. I have been pressed at various times to give an estimate. In fact, I answered a Question in the House asking about the number of jobs which there are at this moment—if I may use the expression, in the pipeline—which are appropriate to the industry. The jobs which are known to have occurred or are definite from the proposals about which we know already amount to 7,500, but there will be many more as more projects come about.

Mr. Grimond: I am grateful to the Secretary of State. However, a great deal more information should be given to the House and more planning should go on. We should know more clearly who will benefit from this enormous expansion. I believe that the local authorities should get something from the oil profits. Recently we debated the financing of local authorities. Here is a great asset near parts of Scotland which are in need of new assets from which public finance can be drawn. I should like to think that local authorities should be entitled to take some royalty on the oil discovered off their shores.
I am also worried about the social consequences of the oil discovery. They could be very good. However, the social consequences of big developments in the Victorian era were not always very good. There is a danger in my constituency of small communities being totally fragmented, disrupted and altered and after 25 years just being dropped and forgotten. The oil will be finished and we shall be left with the wreckage. The whole fabric of our communities and many of our small industries which are doing well might pack up. I suggest that the Scottish Office should appoint a small commission to watch this matter. It should look at the situation before the oil comes and consider what the effect of these mammoth discoveries is as they go along. My constituency is an extreme case. But in the north-west of Scotland and elsewhere there is anxiety about what will happen 25 to 30 years hence if by that time the oilfields should be exhausted.
The Secretary of State said that the Highlands and Islands were to some extent a success story. I touched wood when he spoke of a boom in Shetland. A boom in Shetland depends on close work with the French market in wool and getting fish. We have not always got all the fish we want. There is a potential success story in Scotland. To paraphrase a famous remark, Scotland is now the paymaster. Time was when a sort of Scottish actuary went cap in hand to London because we were the poor end of the country, but not now.
It is the Victoria Line, the line to London Airport, and things like Concorde which need subsidising. Where are those subsidies to come from? From Scottish oil. We must change our attitude. We are now the rich end of Britain. Are we to make a success of it or not? We must get away from the "poor end "mentality that we have had for so long.
We are also well placed in regard to the modern feelings which have been developing all over the world; the revolt against size for the sake of size and the revolt against conurbations the size of Los Angeles. There is a revolt against the inhumanity of treating human beings as hands to work machines in enormous factories turning out mass-designed products. Most of the towns in Scotland are communities and feel as communities. We have a marvellous landscape and open space which is extremely valuable. The time has come to make sure that we know where we are going and decide what use we shall make of the benefits put at our disposal. There is a stronger case than ever for saying that there should be more power in Scotland over Scottish affairs. There should be more high level jobs in Scotland.
I regret the appointment of a retired admiral to the HIDB, whatever his qualifications. It gives the impression that there are no people in the Highlands capable of doing the job; but there are. Unless we promote people in the Highlands who have been doing the job and give them a chance when they are young, they will go. A feeling is growing up that the Highlands and Islands Development Board is a suitable place for retired public servants to end their lives. This,


is fatal to the morale of the Highlands, and such a policy is totally unnecessary. There are coming out of the universities and technical colleges young men who are qualified and willing to work in Scotland, and they must be given the chance to do so.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: I live in the area and I know that many of the people employed by the board are young men in their twenties. They are not, of course, full members of the board itself, but they may be in the future. This is a full-time job. I have a Question on this, so I shall not pursue it now, but there are the kind of people who the right hon. Gentleman has been describing working for the board.

Mr. Grimond: I know that 160 people are working for the board, but who is at the top of it? There is one ex-diplomat and one ex-admiral. It is the top in which I am interested. I bet there are several dozen people in Scotland who know more about social development in Scotland than does this ex-admiral on the board. The board has to get round to the integration of economic and social development, and I am not sure that the appointment of a retired admiral and an ex-ambassador, however admirable they may be in themselves, is a good thing. The board is more important than running a small embassy. I have constantly asked whether appointments at embassies are open to ex-members of the Highlands and Islands Development Board. When I see people from the board appointed to be rear-admirals in the Navy I shall know that we have an egalitarian society.
I notice a great improvement in the morale of some places in the far North. I have had three sons. I sent the first two to Eton and the third one to Stromness Academy, not for any anti-snobbish reasons but because it is a better place at which to be educated than Eton. Whether the teaching is as good, I do not know—I am not qualified to judge—but it is a good community and a good school. There is success in the Highlands, and the Scottish Office ought to examine why this is so and repeat it elsewhere. If it can enforce a Scottish policy in Scotland the future will be ours, especially if we use our oil assets correctly.

6.2 p.m.

Sir John Gilmour: I wish that I could be as certain as the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) that the fact that we have found oil off Scotland means that we are the rich end of the United Kingdom. I regard that as doubtful, and I shall come back to it in a moment.
I should like, first, to take up one or two of the points made by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan). He started by talking about the statement made today about the railways. One of the points that came to my mind when I heard it was that over the last few years we have evolved a system in which we have the Government subsidise uneconomic passenger railway services and at the same time we have encouraged local authorities to subsidise the bus services. There seems to be no way in which the two have been brought together to make certain that public funds are used to the best possible advantage.
The situation is well displayed by the fact that the railway from Edinburgh to Kinross and Perth has been replaced by a motorway, and yet no proper estimation has been made of whether the money that is being spent in subsidising other railways would not be better spent on putting the whole lot either on to the railways or on to the buses. It seems that we play about with spending too much money on too many things.
The other point made by the hon. Gentleman came down to the designation of special development areas, and that brought to my mind the new town of Glenrothes, the development of which as a special development area is tied to being linked to Glasgow. Because of what the Secretary of State has been telling us about North Sea oil development, surely the great thing that we should have is a place in the east of Scotland to which to attract people to provide the goods and services which can serve the developing oil industry? Surely it is not necessary to tie development of a place like Glenrothes to taking people from Glasgow? It should be tied to what it can do for the development of the whole of Scotland, irrespective of where the people come from.
The Opposition Motion ill behoves them, because I think back to the 1964


General Election when it was a plank of the Labour Party that we should not look for oil or gas in the North Sea unless we could help it.

Mr. Ross: That is not so.

Sir J. Gilmour: We can now welcome the fact that hon. Gentlemen opposite have changed their minds, but one of the criticisms of many people arises from the method by which the oil will come ashore. The criticism is that it will come ashore in pipes made in Japan because we were not quick enough to anticipate events and get on with producing the necessary type of steel. I think that the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) and his hon. Friends were keener to nationalise the steel industry than to think ahead for the kind of markets which it ought to have.
It is no good saying that there were not other parts of the world in which such pipes could have been used, because we know that there has been undersea exploration for oil in many parts of the world and had we been up and coming about what we should do for our steel industry we could have made the kind of steel necessary for the pipes needed to bring the oil ashore.

Mr. James Hamilton: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I have constantly raised this matter with the Government? I know that the British Steel Corporation is responsible for producing these pipes and I have asked that they should be produced in the Clydesdale Works in my constituency. Unfortunately, because the steel industry was not nationalised the necessary research was not done, and we are therefore in our present situation.

Sir J. Gilmour: This is something over which we need to agree to differ. I am certain that to supply pipes, say, this year, it would have been necessary to do the research work four or five years ago in order to produce the type of steel that is needed. It is no good the Opposition moving a censure Motion on my right hon. Friend for a lack of forethought because the fact is that we were not in a position to do anything about the present situation.
One good thing is that the oil refining companies have shown forethought. Not long ago I went to the Grangemouth

refinery. It was developed way back in 1924, with a production of 360,000 tons a year. This went on until1939. With the outbreak of war supplies of oil for refining were cut off, and the Grangemouth refinery had to close down. It reopened in 1946 with a production capacity of 2¼ million tons. By 1969 investment of about £70 million had been made, and a petro-chemical plant is also in operation.
What worries me about what the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland said about finding North Sea oil and the wealth that might come from it is that the first fuel from the Forties Field will be piped ashore to the Peterhead area and come down by pipeline to Grangemouth. The amount coming in will be equivalent to all the oil that can be used in Scotland. It will come to one company which cannot corner the whole market for Scotland, and a great deal of the oil will need to go elsewhere.
Is there any chance of oil in Scotland being any cheaper? The answer is "No". This is why I quarrel with the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland. How did we get our wealth in the past in Scotland? We achieved it because we had cheap coal and steel, and because we built ships and supplied goods. We have to aim at ensuring that these national resources mean cheaper supplies for our industry.
This is not entirely a question of how much money is extracted from the oil companies in royalties. It is largely a question of the fiscal policy that is adopted, and what duty is levied on the oil. This applies particularly to the oil surcharge. This is something that could be got rid of straight away, particularly as no decision to transfer a coal-fired power station from coal to oil can be made without the Secretary of State's permission. In other words, the surcharge does not stop it. It is the Secretary of State who stops it happening.
One of the extraordinary things is that at Grangemouth, the only oil refinery in Scotland, one can look across the river and find the largest coal-fired generating station in the country, and probably in Europe. It is just across the water, next door to the oil. We have the continuing rising price of coal in the report of the South of Scotland Electricity Board, and the first thing that is asked is whether


something can be done to cut the price of coal. What seems to be entirely wrong is that we are quite prepared to say that we should spend public money in keeping an unremunerative and uneconomic railway service but we are making coal dearer than oil in order to keep miners in employment. Would it not be better to use that money in Scotland in generating electricity at the cheapest possible price?

Dr. M. S. Miller: I was interested in the hon. Member's previous point about whether oil will be cheaper. Does not he realise that Scottish oil can be cheaper because, first, it is of very high quality, second, transport costs are lower, and third, the markets for the oil are very much nearer as they are all in Western Europe?

Sir J. Gilmour: I wish that I could feel that this was so. But having studied with some interest the Scottish Council's Aviemore report "Oil and Scotland's Future", one finds that the oil experts have said that a great deal of the oil would have to be blended and exported. Again, we do not see our way to getting all these advantages.
As I understand it—again from the report—from the next oil field to be exploited, the Shell-Esso field, the oil will be brought ashore by barge and will go to Teesport. It will not go to Scotland, although the source is off the Firth of Forth. No doubt the situation is slightly different with the Forties field. I forget the code number and all the millions of pounds involved off Orkney and Shetland, but that field is at least twice the distance off Orkney that the Forties field is offshore.
I have been a Member of the House for 10 or 11 years and have taken part in many debates in which Governments of each colour, with the best intention in the world, have said, "We will use public money in order to try to attract industry to Scotland and to redress the balance of unemployment from which we have been suffering for all this time". But no industry is ever particularly persuaded by the idea that at a particular moment it may receive something to persuade it to go there. Industrialists think of the continued effect of establishing an industry there. This comes down to

transport costs and so on. If one can reduce transport costs, that does more than anything else to attract industry to come to a place 300 or 400 miles from the main centre of population.
Regarding entry to the EEC and the arguments about what we shall gain by having a population of over 200 million in Europe, one is still faced with the fact that manufacturing industry in Scotland will be further from the centres of population in Europe than it is from those in England. So the advantages will be more difficult for Scotland to obtain unless we can do something to cut transport costs.
Similarly, unless we can reduce manufacturing costs by cutting the price of fuel and making certain that electricity and gas, for instance, are cheaper in Scotland—theprices at present do not compare with those in England, although we have these natural resources—it will not be easy in the long term to get people to come to Scotland.
A businessman setting up an investment of millions of pounds thinks of what is likely to happen over the next 25 to 30 years, and not just in the period between this year's Budget and next year's Budget. He thinks about the long term future for setting up an industry in Scotland.
One of the things to be considered is what sort of manufacturing industry can be set up. There is no doubt that as long as one can manufacture goods in Scotland of a high capital value when produced, so that the content of transport cost is low, one has a much better chance of selling them. But what does one do next about this problem? There is bound to be development in the motorcar industry in the foreseeable future. What is the raw material for a motorcar? The raw material is steel. Therefore, unless we have the most efficient steel industry obtainable we are not likely to attract any more motorcar industries to Scotland.
In these debates we often think very much about the coming industries and developments. Sometimes we tend to forget those things which are the bread and butter of our country. In my part of the world, in the East of Scotland particularly, paper making is an industry of the greatest importance. That industry


has been going through an extremely difficult time in past years. It is essential that the Government should make certain that in the transition arrangements of leaving EFTA and entering the EEC, the paper making industry is given all the encouragement and help it can get. If it succumbs at present, it will never be able to start again. It would be subject to overwhelming competition from elsewhere.
The whisky distilling industry is another industry to be considered. It is a continuing factor in Scotland's economy and has an enormous impact on the agriculture industry which produces the raw materials. It employs between 20,000 and 25,000 people. It has the ability to spend capital on plant. Fortunately there is a big development in my constituency now, with millions of pounds being spent on plant. That is exactly the sort of thing my right hon. Friends want to see. They want to see capital expenditure on plant and equipment. I hope that they will look after the whisky distilling industry and make certain that by entering the EEC it does not suffer unfair competition, for instance, in the rate of duty on whisky compared with that on imported wines. The rate of duty should be reduced to a more reasonable level. That would do a great deal to stimulate not only country but town employment in Scotland. It is interesting in that connection that one-third of the traffic out of the Clyde Port Authority is in the export of whisky.
Another industry of the greatest importance to Scotland is the fishing industry. At present we are going through a very difficult period in our negotiations with Iceland. I hope that my right hon. Friends will make certain that they stand firm in this matter. But I am doubtful whether, for instance, if there is trouble, we have sufficient naval strength to look after our fishing interests in Icelandic waters. We need a little more propaganda showing that, while Iceland may have a good case for looking after her fishing industry, she is ruining fishing in the North Sea by allowing commercial fishing, which has ruined herring fishing around Iceland through Iceland's fault.
We had a White Paper recently on the forestry industry. This has caused a great deal of concern to many people, particularly in the Highlands, because we

must look forward to a forestry industry which not only employs people in the countryside—and we have had difficulties about whether those people should be itinerant labour travelling around the country or resident labour, and that matter needs careful examination—but also an industry which produces processing industries, paper making, chipboard and so on.
What we need to do is to make certain that we try from time to time to look at Scotland from the outside and see ourselves as others see us. Most people would think that we have very good opportunities but that we tend to think that the whole thing will be saved by Government grants or incentives. We have to set up an economic climate in which it pays people to manufacture in Scotland. That is why fuel policy is so important to Scotland. We are at the end of the road. We are furthest of all away from the markets. This sort of climate can do more good than almost anything else.
I have applauded my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer for reducing taxation. It is fine to say that so many £s have come off income tax More people would be interested in a reduction in the petrol tax than in a reduction in income tax. All of us must by other means drive and travel longer distances than do the people in the rest of the United Kingdom, and fuel costs concern us greatly. A reduction in fuel costs would reduce the cost of transport, electricity and power and encourage more industries to come to Scotland.

ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Speaker: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act, 1967, that the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Acts.

1. Finance Act, 1972.
2. Town and Country Planning (Amendment) Act, 1972.
3. Field Monuments Act, 1972.
4. Children Act, 1972.
5. Trading Representations (Disabled Persons) Amendment Act, 1972.
6. Housing (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act, 1972.


7. Housing Finance Act, 1972.
8. Parliamentary and other Pensions Act, 1972.
9. Affiliation Proceedings (Amendment) Act, 1972.
10. Legal Advice and Assistance Act, 1972.
11. Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons (Scotland) Act, 1972.
12. Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act, 1972.
13. Contracts of Employment Act, 1972.
14. British Library Act, 1972.
15. Sri Lanka Republic Act, 1972.
16. Culag (Lochinver) Pier Order Confirmation Act, 1972.
17. Stromness (Vehicle Ferry Terminal) Pier &amp;c. Order Confirmation Act, 1972.
18. Railway Clearing System Superannuation Fund Act, 1972.
19. Bath Corporation Act, 1972.
20. Sunderland Corporation Act, 1972.
21. Upper Avon Navigation Act, 1972.
22. Killingholme Generating Station (Ancillary Powers) Act, 1972.
23. Westminster Abbey and Saint Margaret Westminster Act, 1972.
24. Greater London Council (Money) Act, 1972.
25. Cornwall River Authority Act, 1972.
26. Coventry Corporation Act, 1972.
27. Devon County Council Act, Act, 1972.
28. Derby Corporation Act, 1972.
29. Friends of the Clergy Corporation Act, 1972.
30. Kensington and Chelsea Corporation Act, 1972.
31. Oxford Corporation Act, 1972.
32. British Railways Act, 1972.

SCOTLAND

Question again proposed.

6.22 p.m.

Mr. William Hannan: It would not do, Mr. Speaker, if many speeches in the House were delivered in one breath, in the manner in which you so admirably discharged your duty then.
I was interested in what the hon. Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour) said. It was predictable that the subject of oil would feature largely in this debate. I hope that a feeling of euphoria will not be generated and that we shall not lose sight of our real problems in a welter of dreams. The importance of a fuel policy suddenly becomes apparent. The advice that many of us on these benches have tendered has been ignored for too long.
Earlier this afternoon we heard a disgraceful remark by the Minister for Transport Industries when he described the railways as a fiasco and said that that had always been his view. Yet he was making a public statement, I suppose on behalf of the Government. Presumably he will be challenged about his statement in the near future.
One thing which is certain in public affairs and in industry is that, if it had not been for the principle of public ownership and public interest, Scotland today would be nearer a desert than anything. Public money has been put into the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board, the South of Scotland Electricity Board, the National Coal Board, and forestry and fishing. This public money has sustained the jobs and the future of many of our people.
It is no use the Government making a virtue out of a pledge which they gave to UCS last year. We have all heard of the play "The Reluctant Bride". That was certainly the most reluctant pledge which had to be forced out of the Secretary of State. The Government yielded only after great industrial demonstrations and political pressures in the House. Government supporters talk in scathing terms about our nationalisation. What about Rolls-Royce?
I am in danger of devoting too much of my speech to replying to earlier speeches and, in consequence, not making


my essential points. I want strongly to support what my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) said in his admirable speech in moving the Motion. The Government first commit the error of resisting our proposals. Then, when the Government are ultimately pressurised into accepting our proposals, the Secretary of State, like little Jack Horner, stands up and says, "Look what a good little boy am I".
I welcome this opportunity to focus attention on a feature of Scotland's unemployment problem. It relates to Glasgow where I have spent some time making a close examination of the nature of the prevailing unemployment. I urge the Government not to overlook Glasgow's problem in the overall general consideration of industry in Scotland.
I address my remarks to the direct effect of the Government's policies, not in a narrow parochial sense, but from the general premise that a high rate of industrial activity and commercial growth in the City of Glasgow is likely to reflect an improvement in contiguous areas.
Glasgow has been over spilling her population and smaller industries, but nothing new has been coming into Glasgow. This has hit Glasgow and the immediately surrounding area hard. We accept the principle of dispersal of industry, reduction of density, and the creation of new town development. However, as a result of this many of Glasgow's younger people are leaving the city. We should not be blind to the urgent necessity of replacing Glasgow's losses by new, lighter industry and activity for those who remain.
Scotland's overall unemployment figure is 138,544. The total unemployment in Glasgow is 8·2 per cent. compared with the Scottish average of 6·5 per cent. and the United Kingdom average of 3·6 per cent. We talk of Scotland's unemployment rate being twice the national average, but Glasgow's unemployment rate is more than twice the national average.
Male unemployment in Glasgow at 11·8 per cent. is higher than it was a year ago, and this figure is more than perturbing. This is after only two years of Tory Government, and there is every promise of the figure becoming higher. The major pledge given by the Tory Party in its Scottish manifesto was to

the effect—"Scotland will get moving again. No part of Britain has more to gain from Tory policies." In June, 1970, the unemployment figure was 84,000.
On a closer analysis Glasgow's figures become even more startling. The figures I have mentioned pertain to the city and do not take into account Rutherglen, Clydebank and Kirkintilloch. Further, the total at 36,800 is 2,180 higher than it was a month ago and 3,387 higher than it was a year ago. Of the total of 5,520 wholly unemployed women in Glasgow, 1,279, more than a quarter, are under 18 years of age.
In short, unemployment among young people from 15 to 18 years of age, and especially among women, is extremely high. Similarly, out of the 31,000 wholly unemployed men in Glasgow, about 3,000, or 10 per cent., are under 18 years of age.
The Government must apply themselves to this problem of unemployment among the young. It is a criminal waste of youthful hopes and aspirations, and it is the worst condemnation one can make of the Government's failure.
The male unemployment rate is worse still, for whereas in January, 1971, it stood at 29,500, or 9 per cent. of the insured population of Glasgow, in July this year, according to the Press notice, it was 31,321, or 11·8 per cent.
It is the nature, persistence and duration of the unemployment which is most sinister. Analysis according to age shows that unemployment is hitting the youngest and, therefore, the most indefensible hardest. As I said before, Glasgow needs new industries and enterprises to replace those which have been displaced in the pursuit of a desirable aim, that is, redevelopment within the city. Glasgow has 29 redevelopment plans on foot. There is no city in Europe which is making such a Herculean effort to change its face. Despite the figures which I have to give, I do not wish to paint a depressing picture of the city. Its people are lively and, in spite of the unemployment, there is a vibrant feeling among them. But the Government must come across with something special to help.
In July, 1972, almost 50 per cent. of the unemployed men in Glasgow were aged up to 35; those aged 18 to 19 constituted 9 per cent., and those from


20 to 24 constituted 17 per cent. Of women in the same age groups, similar figures can be found; for example, those up to 35 years of age constituted 64 per cent. of the total.
There is something basically wrong in a society which permits unemployment to blight the lives of younger people as it does in Glasgow.

Mr. James Dempsey: As usual, my hon. Friend does his homework thoroughly, and he has given compelling reasons to show why something must be done in Glasgow. In preparing his figures, did he find evidence to show how many young people have left school and reached the age of 18 but have never worked?

Mr. Hannan: I am sorry, no. My figures did not go as far as that, and I cannot answer my hon. Friend's question.
The duration of unemployment in Glasgow shows two startling features. Sixty seven per cent. of the total male unemployed have been without work for nine weeks or more, and of the total female unemployed no fewer than 58 per cent. have been workless for a similar period.
The Government must examine these figures, conduct an inquiry, and produce a breakdown showing, for example, how many would be unemployable, and ascertaining the reasons for the nature of unemployment in the various groups to which I have referred.
he Secretary of State sought solace in the fact that the unemployment figures had come down in the last two months. He referred also to the number of houses built. It should be noted that the public sector construction figures achieved under the Labour Administration are now starting to fall. We see that in the annexe to the Scottish Development Department's Report. Moreover, the number of building workers unemployed within the figures I have given is 8,008. These are official figures supplied to me. There are 379 joiners unemployed, and there is unemployment similarly among bricklayers, plasterers and slaters. Yet when a storm disaster hits Glasgow, there is a shortage and slaters have to be brought up from the South.
Industry is not doing sufficient about day-release for our young people. The record of Scottish employers in this respect is much worse than that of employers in England and Wales.
I have taken up my time in dwelling on the problems of Glasgow. I feel keenly about them and, I confess, some of the matters which I have had to put to the House I came across quite by accident. I hope that the facts and figures which I have given will bear weight with the Government. In a debate of this kind, one usually tries to cover the wider picture, but on this occasion I thought it right, in the interests of the city of Glasgow and my constituency, to direct the Government's attention to the urgent need for action to help Glasgow in the huge problems which it faces. It is, after all, the hub of an important area. If new activity were generated in Glasgow—there must be much manpower and machinery lying idle and wasted—Glasgow's revival could be reflected in a new prosperity in the surrounding area, too.

6.37 p.m.

Mr. Patrick Wolrige-Gordon: I was disappointed in the speech of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan), and I suspect that he may well have been a bit disappointed in places as well. He made a point about the need for a State holding company. What sort of industries or factories would a State holding company direct, presumably by some form of legislation, to my constituency?
I cannot help thinking back to the major disaster on the employment and economic scene in Aberdeenshire under the Socialist Administration, namely, the closure of the British Railways locomotive works in Inverurie. Who was responsible for that?—some hard-faced men in private capitalist boardrooms? Not at all. They were hard-faced men in public nationalised industry boardrooms. Right hon. and hon. Members opposite ought to give up the pretence that they are any different, for otherwise they only raise false hopes.
The hon. Member for Craigton wants to know who will set the rate of oil production before we even know the amount of oil available. Inevitably, the amount that is there will be an important factor affecting the rate. The trouble is that


everyone wants a share of the oil. If Robert Louis Stevenson were writing "Treasure Island" today, he would probably set the scene off the Scottish coast and put some of the speakers today among the cast of the pirates. Everybody will get as much out of Scottish oil as they put into it.
In terms of the participation of Scottish companies in the off-shore industry and the complaints which are made about them, the report of the Aviemore Conference is compulsive reading. Many sensible and interesting contributions were made. One such contribution was a comment by Mr. Adams of the Scottish Council for Development and Industry. He said that people who think in terms of investing in the Scottish off-shore oil industry must realise that what they are undertaking is an investment not in the Scottish off-shore oil industry but in the world off-shore oil industry. The oil industry is a global industry. It is not a Scottish industry because it happens to have some oilfields off the Scottish coast.
We have a lot of leeway to make up in participating in the oil industry. Let us not expect to do in one year what the companies have done in 50 years in absorbing their various techniques.
My next general point relates to the position of the Petroleum Division of the Department of Trade and Industry and the effective regulation, examination and control of the industry. There has been a recent Government announcement, which all of us on this side of the House welcomed, to the effect that the White Fish Authority will move its headquarters from London to Edinburgh. The one major and central reason for that step is the fact that the balance of interest and involvement in the fishing industry is moving, and has been moving for some time, steadily north. Exactly the same is true of the oil industry off the Scottish coast. I hope that we shall apply the same considerations to its regulation as we now rightly apply to the British fishing industry.
There is one point which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made in his excellent speech with which I should like to take issue. I and many people, particularly in Aberdeenshire, were appreciative of the consideration and the length of time given by the House to the Harbours Development (Scotland) Bill. It

enable many facts to be clarified and discussed which would not necessarily have been so easy to put forward otherwise. It is undeniable that that Bill is on its way and will be in time to permit any possible development.
As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, I am fortunate in representing one of the most buoyant parts of the Scottish economy. I apologise for not following more closely the speech of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Mary-hill (Mr. William Hannan). Although I have great sympathy with the points which the hon. Gentleman made, I want to concentrate mainly on my own part of the country, if for no other reason than that, in a scene which is in places depressing, there is a great deal of value in stressing the fact that there is great confidence and buoyancy in other parts.
Stability and dynamism have always been inherent in the North-East of Scotland. Even before oil reared its shining black head, once regional development was launched in the early 1960s diversification and expansion went ahead successfully, until the grim years of the Labour Government when hardly anything happened in the area except the Gaskin Report. Now oil has come along and the Tory Party has been reconverted to a regional policy.
I tremble for the riches about to fall on our defenceless heads; I do not altogether say that in jest. Affluence and success are not as easy companions as they look. The North-East will have to be careful in the defence of its heritage, as well as open-hearted to those who will come to the area. The Gaskin Report set a target of 8,000 new jobs in the North-East over six years starting on 1st January. The hon. Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon), who was Minister of State, said that it would be remarkable if such a rate were achieved. My hon. Friend the Secretary of State is already saying that 7,500 new jobs have been created or will shortly be created directly from the North Sea oil discoveries since June. 1970.
The development authority in the North-East estimates that the oil industry has produced 1,300 new jobs in the area in 20 months, of which 60 per cent. have been filled by local people. That means in round figures 500 incomers. Firms are establishing themselves in the area at


the rate of two a week. There are now 105 new firms, and 160 local firms are now participating directly in the oil industry. Of course, we are still only on the threshold, although to listen to some speeches one would think that it was all proved, that there is no trouble involved and that we simply have to decide what we shall do about it.
According to my latest information, 14 rigs will be working this summer, followed by 18 in 1973, 24 in 1974 and 25 in 1975. In addition, two fixed platforms are expected to be in operation in 1973 or early 1974. By 1975, on the basis of what is now known, there should be 5,000 jobs in oil exploration and a considerable amount more in back-up operations. That does not involve expansion in other directions and, of course, considerable expansion is going on. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has on his desk exciting proposals for the further development of the fishing harbours at Fraserburgh and Peterhead. I hope that we can soon have positive decisions in principle on those harbours. We must back success, and the fishing industry which in the North East of Scotland is tremendously successful.
There are also other industries not connected with oil which are coming to the area as well as the actual or proposed expansion of existing plant. One immediate effect of all this can be seen at Dyce, which is growing to an enormous size. The airport at Dyce serves the whole of the North-East of Scotland. It is a tremendous asset to the region and we are extremely grateful for it, but we need to get on with it. Over a sample two-month period, April and May, BEA passengers between Aberdeen and London increased by 25 per cent. The number of transport aircraft movements in the first five months of the year was 30 per cent. more than the same period last year. The usual annual growth rate of 4 per cent. for freight is now showing a considerable expansion. My right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Lieut.-Col. Colin Mitchell), whose voice is unfortunately muffled by his distinguished position, has done a tremendous job in alerting the authorities to this situation, and the time has come for action in regard to the terminal buildings and the necessary

strengthening of the runways for jet aircraft. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is pressing the same view.
I wish to make exactly the same point about roads. My hon. Friend the Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour), in an excellent speech, concentrated on the need to reduce transport costs if industry in Scotland is to be able to compete on fair terms with industries in the Common Market countries. One of the important matters involved in transport costs is speed of movement.
I wish to express gratitude for what has been done in our road system and. as usual for a politician, I wish to ask for some more. No doubt hon. Members saw the recent photograph in the newspapers showing lorries carrying the first consignment of steel pipes for the oilfields. Those enormous lorries were parked all the way down the street in Aberdeen. They were enormous. We have also had this week the authorisation of the motorway to be constructed between Glasgow and Stirling, and I welcome this decision very much indeed. I hope that my right hon. Friend will continue his praiseworthy endeavours to modernise to the highest possible standards the motorways to the North.
It is clear that our problems in the North-East are already beginning to be the problems of over-activity. Building contractors no longer are able to tender estimates for small building schemes because of the amount of work they already have on hand, and there is concern about the environment, and so on. I believe it should be possible to link all these developments with the greatest good of the greatest number, provided that we are careful and that the greed for gold does not overtake our judgment.
I am wholly for this development provided that the needs of people are put ahead of profit as the master motive. I believe that the Government and all concerned should make that their policy.

6.53 p.m.

Mr. James Sillars: I do not intend to take up all the points raised by the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Wolrige-Gordon), though I always give him ten out of ten for courage. One of the most remarkable things I have ever seen was the manner


in which the hon. Gentleman addressed the TUC Scottish Assembly at the beginning of the year. He is one Scottish Tory who has the guts to stand up and defend the indefensible. He mentioned the question of oil, and I shall have something to say on that topic later in my remarks.
I am speaking in this debate with a deep sense of depression. I am most concerned about the state of Scotland at present, and I am even more concerned about the state of Scotland as it will stand in mid-winter 1972–73. All reasonable, sensible people wish our country to be harmonious, safe, happy and free from civil strife. A fundamental pre-requisite to reaching that stage is a situation of full employment. Full employment allows us to fulfil the legitimate ambitions of work people to have a better standard of living for themselves and their children. Perhaps the most important function of full employment is that it satisfies a man's own need to feel useful in his own estimate of his personality. It is important for a man to be able to say to himself, "Whatever your shortcomings, you are a useful member of society", so that he can at least have his self-esteem.
If we do not have a situation of full employment we shall head for a very dangerous social situation. For in Scotland we are not missing full employment by a hair's breadth, or by one small decimal point on the unemployment scale; we are missing full employment by a massive figure indeed. I regard the Government's policy as a deliberate one not to reduce the high level of unemployment by a substantial figure. [Hon. Members: "Oh."] I shall try to prove that in a moment.
The Government are showing a combination of folly, stupidity and irresponsibility in their failure to understand what makes many ordinary men and women tick. We are heading for a winter of bitter discontent. I forecast that the Government in the months from December to March will be consulting the weatherman far more than some people have this week been consulting the Official Solicitor. We have been fortunate in Scotland in that we have had three winters in which not one worker had been laid off because of frost. This is unusual in the Scottish climate. Unless we experience that sort of winter this

year, the Scottish unemployment figures will be appalling—they will be appalling enough in any event, but far worse than any we have ever seen before. Men will have to be laid off from a base which is already exceptionally high and the unemployment figure will climb higher before winter reaches its end.
The subject of oil has already been mentioned by more than one hon. Member in this debate. A fortnight ago I made a speech outside the House criticising the Government's regional policy which is based on persuasion, and I called for them to adopt a policy of certitude in taking real control of oil resources found in Scottish waters. I will not go over all the points I made in that speech, for I am sure that the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) noted the eight points which were set out in the Press reports of that speech; the hon. Gentleman and I, for well-known reasons, have for a number of years developed the habit of reading each other's speeches.
I appreciate that the eight-point programme set out in my constituency speech poses political and policy difficulties. If such steps were taken by the Government they would involve an element of political risk-taking. They could lead to a reinforcement of nationalist feeling on the borders and it might provoke Treasury hatchet-men to take the view, "You have been given something on the one hand, and therefore something must be taken away on the other hand." However, I believe that the risks involved in my policy can be exaggerated. I strongly believe that risks must be taken because in Scotland we face a desperate situation, and only desperate policies will bring our country out of it.
I do not regard the present levels of unemployment merely as intolerable or unacceptable. These are adjectives which have been used by many people in this House over a number of years, and indeed in 1967 the present Secretary of State for the Social Services, who then led for the Conservative Opposition, in a debate on Scottish unemployment described a figure of 73,000 people totally unemployed as intolerable. Such levels of unemployment are not only intolerable and unacceptable: they are socially dangerous. People of my generation will not tolerate any denial of the right to work. If we


are not given the right to work, we shall have to fight for it.
We believe that north of the border we face a national emergency. One of the most depressing features of the Secretary of State's speech today, and indeed of the speeches made by his hon. Friends, is that there has been no recognition of the emergency situation north of the border in terms of unemployment. The Secretary of State when leading for the Tory Opposition in a debate on 3rd February, 1970, said this, when going full tilt for the then Labour Government.
The figures recently released for Scotland are especially disturbing. They show a rise of more than 11,000, from 3·7 to 4·4 per cent."—[Official Report, 3rd February, 1970; Vol. 795, c. 274.]
The right hon. Gentleman was talking about the figures released on 12th January, 1970, in the height of the winter. Unemployment at that time amounted in total to 96,000; in terms of wholly unemployed, seasonally adjusted, excluding school leavers, the figure was 82,800—a rate of 3·8 per cent. If they were disturbing to the right hon. Gentleman at that time—just over two years ago—we can only conclude that the present figures are an absolute national disaster, and constitute a national emergency.
I want to quote some other figures to illustrate the size of the present problem. The Secretary of State made some play of the fact that there is a difference between the July figure of wholly unemployed, seasonally adjusted—excluding the school leavers—and the figures given last month. They are not the relevant figures; the relevant figures are the July figures for the last three years. In July, 1970, total Scottish unemployment amounted to 93,400 and wholly unemployed, seasonally adjusted, was 89,900—a rate of 4·2 per cent. By July, 1971, the number of totally unemployed was 134,600, and of wholly unemployed, seasonally adjusted, 125,000. In July of this year the number of totally unemployed was 138,500, and of wholly unemployed, seasonally adjusted, 128,700.
As each year goes by the figure of wholly unemployed rises substantially. That is the background to the present position. Figures released last week by

the Government in answer to a parliamentary Question show that the number of wholly unemployed males in Scotland was over 100,000—a 40,000 increase in the last two years. At the same time, the Scottish Economic Bulletin, the official Scottish Office publication, informs us that the job loss—notified redundancies—in the first four months of 1972 is running at the rate of 600 a week which, if we take that as being constant throughout the year, means a job loss of 30,000 per year. That takes no account of jobs lost but not notified, because of early retirements, and so on.
If we are to make up a job loss of that magnitude, reduce unemployment and stem the flow of emigration—given the Government's adherence to the capitalist ethic—we shall need a growth rate far in excess of the 5 per cent. to which the Chancellor committed himself in the Budget and which the Prime Minister reaffirmed at Question time on Tuesday.
We are also told by the Scottish Economic Bulletin that this growth rate of 5 per cent. must also take account of an increase in productive potential in the economy, and in manufacturing last year the underlying productive potential was about 4 per cent. It does not leave much room in the growth rate for the generation of new jobs to take up the number of people who are unemployed.
We also have to face the fact that the Government have deliberately relaxed IDC control in the West Midlands—an area from which we normally would and could expect to see jobs emerging for the northern part of the country, especially Scotland.
I am aware that the picture that I have painted is a dismal one, but I believe that it is an objective picture against a background of facts, figures and situations that cannot be denied. This Government are the Government that promised us "A Better Tomorrow". That was the time scale picked by them in their election manifesto; indeed, that was the title of it. What we have had is an increasingly bitter tomorrow for the people in our part of the country.
A growth of jobs based on oil control is the Government's major hope substantially to reduce Scottish unemployment and to improve the position. Time


is running out for the Government. Let them make no mistake about it; the situation is desperate. If they cannot concede to us the right to work we in Scotland will have to embark upon measures that enable us to take the right to work into our own hands. [Interruption.] I am asked what I mean by that. I do not know what will happen in Scotland in the next six months, but we cannot expect my generation to sit idly by and vote once very five years at the ballot box only to have their ambitions frustrated by the present Government's policies. I do not want to see demonstrations, marches and increasing bitterness and engendered venom in the streets of Scotland this winter. But that is the only thing that I can foresee if Scottish unemployment is not substantially reduced before the onset of winter, and if no definite hope is seen for the people of Scotland that at this time next year we shall be travelling very fast on the road to full employment.
It is said that the Government are having private and secret talks about a General Election, perhaps on the Northern Ireland issue. I can only say that nothing would please the people of Scotland more than if we had a General Election tomorrow, because then we would be on the Government benches and hon. Members opposite would be in opposition.

7.5 p.m.

Mr. Donald Stewart: Although I follow a member of the Opposition it must not be assumed that I do so as a Government supporter, or that I am associated with the Opposition Motion. I would have preferred to support the Liberal Motion, because I take the view that successive Governments are responsible for the state in which Scotland finds itself today. I take part in the debate with the feeling "A plague on both your houses".
The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) said that we have the curious situation in which the Government pretend that they inherited a bankrupt country in 1970, and that everything in the garden has been lovely from then on, and the Opposition pretend that our prosperous and happy country in 1970 has degenerated into unemploy-

ment and the rest. That is complete eyewash. The Scottish people are well aware of all this phoney talk about the state of the country.
Without excusing the Government in any way for the present appalling figure of unemployment, I must point out that it was growing before 1970. Between 1964 and 1970, no fewer than 85,000 male jobs disappeared from Scotland. Both sides of the House—Labour and Tory—are culpable. The hon. Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour), referring to fuel resources, said, "Is it not strange that although we possess these resources in Scotland they are no cheaper than anywhere else?" The answer is simple, namely, that the control of these resources is lacking in Scotland. We have to wait for the dictates of the London Government. The people of Scotland are sepoys, under the British Raj. We have to wait for their decision.

Sir J. Gilmour: The hon. Member misunderstands the nature of the oil industry. It is international. I was trying to point out to my right hon. Friend that we have power, through fiscal measures, to see that we get oil at a cheaper rate.

Mr. Stewart: I very much doubt whether we have power to do that. My point was well expressed in an editorial in the Scotsman last December, which said:
So far M.P.s of both major parties seem blind to the chance of transforming the Scottish economy. They can usually be trusted to put the interests of party before those of Scotland.
There are very few Members on either side of the House that I would excuse from that charge.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Craig-ton (Mr. Millan) was talking in terms of the interests of the United Kingdom economy as a whole. When the interests of the United Kingdom economy as a whole are taken into account the Scottish economy is nowhere. We must face the fact that hon. Members think British. We must start thinking Scottish if we want to reverse the degenerating process in our country. The steel industry is dying the death of a thousand cuts. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) is an intelligent man and I do not believe it came as a shock to him to


discover the number of jobs which would be lost in Scotland.
When the Labour Government nationalised the steel industry they signed its death warrant. I am not against nationalisation in principle but when it was done on a British basis the industry was finished. There were plenty of warnings at the time. Profitable mills were closed in Scotland simply to bring work to English mills. It is inevitable. It did not happen because of evil on the part of the English, but it was a logical development with centralisation of that kind. Some hon. Members are alleged to have said that they could not press for the steel works to go to a particular area of Britain. If any Scottish hon. Member said that, it would be a deplorable sell-out to his constituency and an act of treachery to the Scottish economy. Sir Andrew McCance said that there would be the closure of Clyde Alloys number 3 rolling mill with 110 jobs lost. There would be another closure in Mother well, and all this was to give work to the English mills.
The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Lambie) wrote a letter to the Glasgow Herald about the Hunterston development saying that there would have been no problems for the project if it had been in England, and I agree. But the idea for the scheme was not conceived in June, 1970. The right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr.Ross) could have taken action about Hunterston when he was in office. He could have taken a decision in principle which would have bound the succeeding Government, and he is as guilty as the present Government for the absence of any development at Hunterston.
I tabled an Early Day Motion calling for a Scottish Steel Corporation and I would not quibble if it were nationalised. I would be happy with a nationalised steel industry on a Scottish basis. I am only sorry that the Motion did not commend itself to the Labour benches.
The discovery of oil off the Scottish coast destroyed the argument once and for all that Scotland could not hold her own. We have seen what Norway has been able to do with the oil discoveries off her coast. Even by capitalist standards the Government have made a bad bargain. They have been taken to the

cleaners. What benefit will Scotland derive from the oil? In the House of Lords, Lord Balogh said
So far as oil is concerned, the situation is worse. Sir David Barran, the retiring Chairman of Shell, estimated that as much as £2,500 million would be spent in a decade, of which £1,000 million will be in operating expenses, for the total of the oil field. This sounds formidable. If we take his more detailed break-down, things look different. The total investment for a decade for a field of 125 million tons per annum (250,000 barrels per day), a field much like Forties (but Forties might become very much bigger) represents £250 million, of which £100 million is in platforms and production facilities, £70 million in production wells, £65 million in off-shore trunk lines and £15 million in shore facilities—Scotland please note!"—[Official Report, House of Lords, 7th June, 1972; Vol. 331, c. 370.]
Peanuts. That is what Scotland will get out of all this tremendous wealth around her shores.
The hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) said in a debate over a year ago that the oilfields would bring tremendous wealth to this country. I commented afterwards that if his country were the same as mine—Scotland—I did not believe that what he said would be true, because Scotland would be robbed of these resources. It seems that this will happen unless we have a Government who will see to it that the resources are maintained for Scotland. The interests of Scotland and England are often diametrically opposed. English industry will want the oil as cheaply as possible. If Scotland were self-governed and controlled the oil, it could, after meeting all Scottish domestic requirements, arrange with the OPEC countries that the oil was sold for the highest price possible, and sold to any country in the world, including England. It is therefore in the interests of Scotland to have a Government who will see that these valuable resources are used to the greatest benefit of the Scottish people.
The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland mentioned the problems of transport. In my constituency, as in his, this is a great problem. The Secretary of State for Scotland went to the Highlands and on to Orkney and Shetland on his geographical tour but he decided to go no further west. The Highlands may be booming but in my constituency we have the highest unemployment figures in


the British Isles. They were the highest when the Government came into office and they are the highest now.
The fishing limits have been sold out. I have heard the Government's excuse that foreign countries have rights within the six to 12 mile band. But the same thing applies around almost all the British coasts. The fishermen in my constituency have lost these rights and their lobster fishing is disturbed when rockets are fired from the rocket range. I have little sympathy therefore with those concerned about the extension of Icelandic limits to 50 miles. This is fundamentally an English problem.

Mr. Iain Sproat: What about Aberdeen?

Mr. Stewart: The hon. Member knows how many boats go from Aberdeen to fish off the Icelandic coast. I agree with the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland in what he said about an admiral being promoted to the Highlands and Islands Development Board. That is one of the best advertisements for joining the Navy that I have seen in recent years, but it does not do much for the confidence of the people in the Highlands.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: Only yesterday he came to see me about the whole problem of shipping services to the Western Isles.

Mr. Stewart: I am afraid I do not take the right hon. Gentleman's point. I do not see how that affects my argument in any way. I hope the admiral will have some influence in the matter but these are matters for the Secretary of State and for the Government generally.
The rundown in Scotland is continuing. Lord Polwarth said on television last night what is incorporated in the Government's Motion, that they are determined.—
to set Scotland on course for a new period of industrial expansion including additional expenditure on harbours, roads and other infrastructure related to the opportunities opened up by the North Sea oil discoveries".
It is only when they want to extract the oil that they are prepared to provide the infrastructure. Scottish Airways are disappearing from the BEA set up. They have been slipped into a subsidiary called British Air Services. The graduate outflow in 1969–70 was 36·4 per cent. of all

graduates. I have had a letter from a Scots graduate today who had applied for a job with British Petroleum. He did not even reach the short list. They did not even interview him for the post. If, having been on the short list, he had not got the job, that would have been fair enough, for there might have been a better man, but he was not even considered. What is the point of Scottish universities turning out people with qualifications of this sort when they cannot even get a look in with firms such as British Petroleum?
I turn to another promise. Where is Oceanspan, about which we heard so much? If it is not a lame duck, it is probably a dead duck.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: It is still in the egg.

Mr. Stewart: It is like the Secretary of State keeping open his options at Hunterston, which means that it has not yet come to pass and probably never will.
This is no time for any nation to be a colony. What matters now is having resources. Libya and other oil countries see to it that they get a fair price for their oil. They have resources. Governments without them may huff and puff as much as they like, but it is the countries with resources that will dictate. In Scotland we have resources and we should see that they are used for the benefit of the Scottish people.
As a start, we should see that the Government carry out their election promise to set up a Scottish Assembly. This proposal was launched at Perth with a fanfare of trumpets—the Declaration of Perth. There was hardly a word about it when the Conservatives met in conference at Perth a few months ago. The Scottish people are waiting for that promise to be redeemed. That will be a start. It is the only way in which the economy of Scotland will be put on a sure footing, able to give a reasonable lead to the people of this country.

7.22 p.m.

Mr. John Brewis: I agree with the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. David Stewart) when he says that we sometimes get too political in our debates on Scottish affairs. We have listened to two of the gloomiest speeches


that I have ever heard from hon. Members opposite. I wonder what an industrialist intending to come to Scotland would think of those speeches. Would he want to come to Scotland if he read the hints of agitation, demonstrations and disturbance made by the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars) and the unmitigated gloom of the hon. Member for Western Isles?
In his otherwise fairly constructive speech, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) gave the impression that unemployment in Scotland started with the Conservative Government coming to office. It so happens that in preparing my speech for this debate I read a brief sent to us in 1967, when there was a lengthy list of redundancies and when unemployment was rising. The roots of unemployment, which we all deplore, lie in the deflation of the Labour Government in the middle 1960s. Scotland does best when the British economy is expanding and we have taken massive measures in two Budgets to cut taxes and to regenerate British industry. One hopes that this year the gross domestic product will expand by about 5 per cent.
Although the present unemployment position is bad, at least one may say that there are brighter prospects, as was brought out by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Wolrige-Gordon) and by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond), who said that the Shetlands were booming. Also significant is the decision to float the pound, so that we are not adopting the Labour Government's policy of deflation.
Successive Governments have underestimated the persistence of the regional development problem. I remember taking part in debates on the Local Employment Act, 1960. Speaking from memory, I think that the amount to be spent under that Act was about £14 million in a year. Under the Industry Bill we are contemplating an expenditure of £500 million by 1974.
Many of the most significant developments in Scotland have come as a result of Government intervention and have had nothing to do with the Local Employment

Acts. I can think of the examples of the Ravenscraig strip mill, the motor car factories at Linwood and Bathgate, the pulp mill at Fort William, the aluminium smelter at Invergordon, and now Marathon at Clydebank. One hopes that all Government Departments are now conscious of the paramount importance of regional policy.
But there have been a number of instances in the past few years which have tended to shake one's confidence. The establishment of the Forestry Commission's headquarters at Basingstoke by the Labour Government was a complete nonsense, and I am glad that it has been rectified by the present Government. But there are other examples—the atomic energy research station at Culham in Berkshire, and the Cereal Authority's headquarters is now going to Reading.
Whenever there is a shift in defence policy, it always seems to be the out-stations at Perthor Arbroath which get shut down and their activities concentrated at Aldershot or Portsmouth. One would think that we were likely to be invaded by the French at any moment! Much military movement is now carried out by air, and in Prestwick we have an absolutely ideal airport for trooping operations if more of the Army's training were concentrated in Scotland. If the Prime Minister has not already done so, he should issue a directive that regional policy is to be considered in every departmental decision. The Minister for Industry should be in the Cabinet to bring regional problems even more to the forefront.
I do not think that we shall ever solve the regional imbalance by attracting branch factories from England. We must look on the Common Market as a fact and as offering Scotland a great opportunity. Already my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Development has been to Germany, and so has a mission from the Scottish Council for Development and Industry under the leadership of Lord Taylor of Gryfe. I am certain that interest in investment in Scotland can be quickened. When the Scottish Select Committee visited Holland, we were most impressed by the knowledge of Scotland and the nascent oil industry shown by the Bredero Company of Utrecht.
We must also make our voice heard in Brussels in the formation of Community regional policy. It is greatly in our interests to cut down on investment in the central areas of Europe, and that is also the Commission's policy. We want increased grants available for the peripheral regions, even if they are standardised grants within the Community. In that quest we shall get a lot of support from Italy, Iceland, Norway, Denmark and other members of the Community.
While we were in Holland we were told that the image of Scotland was not too good among possible incoming industrialists. I am afraid that is true. The Scottish TUC did a service by recently calling a meeting in the Usher Hall, Edinburgh. Incidentally, my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, East was not the only Conservative by any manner of means who spoke at that meeting. There were contributions from many people across party lines, and the result was a constructive conference, particularly because of the contributions from people as eminent as Cardinal Gray and Sir William McEwan Younger. The Scottish TUC could do a further service, through the working party which was set up as a result of that meeting, or by having talks with the CBI, by seeing how to get rid of Scotland's bad image as a place where to start a factory. The Welsh are much better at this than we are. The result can be seen in the lower position in the unemployment tables which Wales customarily occupies.
uch more could be done in Scotland by self-help and the encouragement of small industries. We have the Small Industries Council for Rural Areas of Scotland, which does a good job, but how often do we find as constituency Members that a small concern employing two or three people but with potential for expansion cannot get any Government assistance? Perhaps the factory is leased or the building is sub-standard. The number of occasions on which small entrepreneurs just starting can obtain no assistance is surprisingly high.
In this connection, I should like to make a suggestion to my right hon. Friend. Innate in many people is the desire to be their own boss, to set up on their own, but usually they do not have the money. Many years ago the

BBC ran a panel game in which each competitor had to propose to a panel of judges a viable proposition. The judges were highly competent people. One of them was an eminent industrialist, Sir Miles Thomas, and another was a trade unionist. The prize was about £5,000, which was enough to start an industry 10 or 15 years ago. Will my right hon. Friend consider running such a competition again in conjunction with, say, Scottish Television? Many of the unsuccessful applicants might well qualify for help through other Government channels if the idea were put into the public mind.
The debate has been concerned mainly with oil, steel and other industrial interests. May I make a plea for the more rural interests, which are often relatively more important in Scotland than in England? Fishing and agriculture are good examples. Forestry is actually more important in Scotland than in England. My right hon. Friend should struggle to maintain the existing Forestry Commission planting commitment in Scotland. On the private side, no one knows whether, having received a planting grant under the dedication scheme, he will qualify for another. If he decides to afforest a bit of land too, say, 20 acres, he does not know whether he will obtain a planting grant. Obviously, one man cannot be employed to look after only 20 acres of woodland, but if 10 people decide to plant 10 acres each the extra employment is provided. This uncertainty is preventing people from making the decisions which must be made for the planting programme this winter.
Will my right hon. Friend see whether he can clarify the position as soon as possible? At present the forestry industry is very depressed and muddled by the White Paper which the Government recently issued.

7.33 p.m.

Mr. Frank McElhone: I regret that the Minister for Industry has left the Chamber, because I intended at the outset to address my remarks to him. It is a matter of great regret to me personally, and I am sure to every hon. Member on this side, as this is the only debate on the Scottish economy that we have had in the whole of this


Session, apart from the debate on a Private Member's Motion initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Buchanan). This debate is in Opposition Supply time. The Government, and particularly Scottish Ministers, are not seized of the dire position we face.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: My hon. Friend the Minister for Industry was here ever since the debate started, but left the Chamber at about 20 minutes past seven. However, I am here to listen to everything the hon. Gentleman says, and I shall pass on his points to my hon. Friend. This is the normal way the debate is operated between 3.30 p.m. and 10 o'clock.

Mr. McElhone: I am not complaining formally at the absence of the Minister. I just regret that when I am making this speech he is not present and that his education on Scottish industry and unemployment will be sadly lacking.

Mr. MacAthur: Mr. MacAthur: rose—

Mr. McElhone: I have had persistent interruptions from the hon. Gentleman in the past, and they are welcome, because he is always wrong, but I should like to continue addressing myself to the Secretary of State.
The right hon. Gentleman underestimates the position in Scotland. He painted a glowing picture today of the Scottish economy, but it was a false picture. Anyone reading his speech in Hansard or in the Press to-morrow will be misled if he does not know the truth of the matter. It is a credit to my hon. Friends, who could have made very emotional, angry speeches, that they contained themselves and made well-researched speeches of factual content. I refer in particular to the speeches of my hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Hannan) and South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars). I should like to continue in that vein.
I must refer to the situation in the United Kingdom as a whole, because it is acknowledged that that situation must be extremely healthy before we in Scotland can benefit in a small way. To counteract the false impression of Scotland today given by the Secretary of State,

I should like to mention a few figures. If he has read the figures produced by the Central Statistical Office he is probably aware that, while productivity in the United Kingdom as a whole has risen by 7 per cent., investment, certainly in Scotland, is in a very poor way. The figures for overseas trade in the past quarter have taken a sharp down-turn, and public expenditure rose by just under 1 per cent in that period.
What I have to say next relates to Govan Shipbuilders and the position on the Upper Clyde. A distressing feature is that 495,000 gross tons of shipping had been laid up by the end of May. I understand that that is the worst figure since July, 1963. It must be a cause for serious concern, especially in view of the Government investment in Govan Shipbuilders and the position of Scottish shipbuilding as a whole.
The right hon. Gentleman will not be unaware that the position in Scotland is contrary to his glowing picture. This is shown by job availability in other parts of the United Kingdom compared with Scotland. In skilled engineering, of which we in Scotland have an abundance, there are five workers for every vacancy in the country as a whole, but I regret to say that in Scotland we have 28 workers for each vacancy. Whereas there are eight workers for every precision fitter vacancy in the United Kingdom as a whole, we have 56, and that job is the livelihood of many Scots. Where there is an average of 11 labourers for each vacancy in England, we have over 200 men chasing one labouring job in Scotland. I was told yesterday that there are 25 per cent. fewer engineering apprentices being taken on compared with 1969–70. This presents the honest picture which the Secretary of State should have given us today.
We would perhaps be mollified if the Scottish situation for 1973 gave reason for hope. We all recognise that the impact of Government legislation such as VAT, high rents through the Housing (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act, which received the Royal Assent today, and the effect of food prices following our entry to the EEC will bear heavily upon the domestic purse. The average worker in Scotland still earns a great deal less than his counterpart in England. The Secretary of State has no doubt read the


Finacial Times of 3rd June which carried out a survey of business concerns. We can accept that the Financial Times usually does a realistic type of survey. It said:
On the basis of this survey no increase in the number of workers in the private sector can be expected over the next year.
Even the situation in 1973 will be as dismal as at present.
I hope the Minister for Industry will not make the same mistake as his predecessor, who said that we had an enormous obsession with unemployment. We confess to that. That has been our predicament for all too long. We are told that the reason for the present situation is cost inflation and the fact that trade unions are pressing wage claim after wage claim. I will not go into all the facts and figures from the Stock Exchange which support my case but it is worth referring to two brief statements from The Times of 24th June when it said:
In spite of record unemployment and stagnant or declining industrial production, share prices in the 1971–72 financial year shot ahead, spurred on by the property boom and the 1971 Budget concessions for the rich…The total market value of all securities quoted on the London Stock Exchange in the year ended 30th March, 1972 jumped by 24 per cent. to reach a total level of £149,531 million. For ordinary shares, the increase in the value was no less than 58 per cent. to reach a level of £57,500 million.
Even the figures bear out that there has been a substantial increase in dividends and profits.
It is a nonsense to say that the legitimate claims of workers have been the cause of the inflation. In this month's issue of Scotland there is a comment on two years of Tory Government. It is not a very flattering report, and this is by no means a Socialist magazine. It speaks of:
…a course of action which if followed fairly quickly, would have enabled the Government to use the strong balance of payments and fairly material goods and currency reserves to buoy up the level of demand.
It also says that:
The scope for manœuvre was unquestionably available.
An opportunity was missed by the Government in 1970 and certainly in 1971. They were eager in the 1970 Budget to give away £350 million to the taxpayers, particularly the corporation tax and surtax payers who had supported them.
There is no point in criticising unless we are prepared to put forward sensible suggestions about what should be done. We do not claim to have the immediate panacea but we on this side have a genuine concern which is absent on the other side of the House. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be present tomorrow when the Industry Bill is dealt with. I would like him to support a Clause which I have tried to insert into the Bill to give executive powers to the industrial regional boards, particularly in Scotland. Anyone reading the Select Committee report in the Glasgow Herald today can see that there is justification for this. The Glasgow Herald says that many millions were spent on regional aid without any real accountability or any knowledge of how the money was spent. The report says:
There must be a few areas of Government expenditure in which so much is spent but so little is known about the success of the policy.
This is one reason why we in Scotland should have some executive powers to deal with the way in which the money will be spent. The days when the man in Whitehall decided how the money was to be spent in Scotland have gone. I hope that the Secretary of State will be here tomorrow with his junior Ministers to support Opposition Amendments.
I will run through some suggestions which the right hon. Gentleman should be considering along with the Minister for Industry. First, there should be an urgent major investment programme dealing with a number of projects in the nationalised industries. That is a cardinal feature of any plan to deal with the agonising unemployment position in Scotland. There should be a massive injection of public money which would create private investment, because there is a crisis of confidence in the private sector in Scotland and the best way to correct this is for a massive injection of Government funds to give a boost to the private sector. When we consider the amount of money that has been invested in other parts of the world, sometimes Scottish money, we are deeply concerned about the loyalty of Scots to Scotland.
We must have a bold new initiative in the oil industry. We should pay attention to what Sir William McEwan Younger said. It is galling when the Chairman of the Conservative Party in Scotland


has to tell it what to do about the Scottish oil industry. Regard must be paid to the plan put forward by Lord Melchett for the Scottish steel industry, also mentioned in the Glasgow Herald today. A strong commitment must be made to the Oceanspan project.
We are deeply concerned about high unemployment among clerical workers in Scotland. The right hon. Gentleman must fight and fight again in the Cabinet to get Government offices to come to Scotland. He should have the reputation of being the Lazarus of the Cabinet. He compares very badly with my right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) when he was Secretary of State. He fought for every £ and every single job.
Perhaps I may make a novel and possibly worthwhile suggestion about the high unemployment among construction and building workers. In Germany there is a useful plan which gives 100 per cent. interest-free loans to enable families to purchase their own homes. That is a highly commendable scheme. We have always accepted the need for public housing but we have also accepted the desire of people to own their own homes. What prevents many people from taking part in this exercise is the difficulty of obtaining the initial deposit and the high interest charges which they must bear. We all know that there is little owner-occupation in Scotland because of the lack of continuity of employment. If the Government would seize the initiative and give 100 per cent. interest-free loans, particularly to people with families, it would encourage many building industry workers to come off the dole and obtain a job.
One could be very emotional and angry about this subject, but it is accepted on this side of the House that the Government are bankrupt of ideas and have an indifferent approach. It is not a question of dogma when we say that the only solution to the dreadful problem of unemployment in Scotland is for the stewardship of this country to be put back in the hands of my right hon. and hon. Friends.

7.51 p.m.

Mr. Iain Sproat: I agree with the hon. Member for Glasgow, Gorbals (Mr. McElhone) on one point,

and that is his very interesting suggestion about 100 per cent. mortgages. However, I should have been even more interested to hear what the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Lambie) would have said about it had he been present.
There is growing agreement among sensible sections of Scottish opinion that the full potential of the Scottish economy is based on three main pillars—Hunterston, North Sea oil and Europe. I shall not deal with the question of Hunterston, for obvious reasons.

Mr. Alex Eadie: Why not?

Mr. Sproat: Because I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will have the chance of dealing with it later in the debate. I should like to deal with the question of North Sea oil, but before doing so I wish to mention something which is not only of local interest but which has a certain national significance, namely, Aberdeen Airport, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen-shire, East (Mr. Wolrige-Gordon) referred.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has done a great deal for the infrastructure of North-East Scotland by way of roads, ports and the Bill on Peterhead Harbour which we discussed last night. However, although it is not his direct responsibility, I ask him to note the need to improve facilities at Aberdeen Airport. The 25·4 per cent. increase in the latest month for which we have figures this year over last year in passenger traffic on the Aberdeen to London run must be the fastest-growing increase in passenger traffic in the United Kingdom. Yet we are still having to make do with old-fashioned aircraft—Viscounts.
During the Rhodesia debate, an hon. Member opposite—I think it was the hon. Member for York (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon)—in trying to show what an appalling state the Rhodesian economy was in, said, "Rhodesian Airways even have to make do with clapped out Viscounts". That is what we in Aberdeen are having to do. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State coined the phrase when he said that Aberdeen was the Texas of the United Kingdom. Indeed, it is the Texas of Europe. In Texas, in America, these planes would probably be found only in a museum.
The runway at Aberdeen Airport needs to be lengthened and strengthened to take jets and we need a big improvement in the terminal facilities. The total cost would be about £1½ million to £2 million. I ask my right hon. Friend to urge his colleagues in the Department of Trade and Industry and those at the Civil Aviation Authority to consider this matter with the utmost urgency.
I should like to say a few words about the effect of the discovery of North Sea oil on the city of Aberdeen. There is a great deal of misunderstanding about what has happened. There are perhaps two extremities of myth. One myth which one often hears even in Aberdeen is talk about there being no boom, that there is no boom apart from that in land and house prices. At the other end of the scale, there are grotesque television programmes from which one would think that every second man walking down Union Street had a stetson on his head and a cigar in his teeth. Both those beliefs are nonsense, but possibly the latter, although a ludicrous caricature is nearer to the truth.
There is no doubt that Aberdeen is already a boom city and is well on the way to becoming the oil capital of Europe. The true picture was indicated by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, East who referred to some of the statistics about Aberdeen. There are 1,300 new jobs, 60 per cent. of them locally. We have about 1,200 Americans in Aberdeen—enough to start their own school. I wish that they would play more of a part in the community. This illustrates some of the social changes which oil exploitation is bringing to Aberdeen.
The North-East of Scotland Development Authority, which is doing a wonderful job, has estimated that there will be as many as 10,000 jobs—5,000 in oil and 5,000 allied to oil. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave the figure of 7,500, which was perhaps more realistic. Figures can be only approximate at this stage, but plainly a tremendous number of new jobs are involved. There are 105 new companies, coming in at the rate of two a week. In addition, 106 concerns are partially involved in oil. Local people in Aberdeen have seen the opportunties and are jumping in to take advantage of them.
The hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Donald Stewart), whose speech I enjoyed, said that Scotland would get no advantage from this development. What he did not mention was that injected into the economy of North-East Scotland will be, and indeed is, £10,000 per day per rig every year. That is a tremendous capital injection into the economy. We already have a dozen rigs there. We shall have 30 by the end of the year. That means that over £10 million a year will be injected into the economy of the area. Not even the hon. Member for the Western Isles can regard that as peanuts.
here have been tremendous advantages in terms of growth as a result of oil development, but there has been growth not simply because of oil. Other companies attracted by the spirit of confidence in the area are corning in. One of the most heartening things in Aberdeen is the growth of business confidence which, alas, the rest of Scotland has not experienced. I would advise anyone who had money to invest and who wanted to get into a growth area to come to Aberdeen where there are excellent prospects for the investor.

Mr. Baxter: Many people talk as if the oil boom in Aberdeen is the be-all and end-all of development in Scotland. The hon. Gentleman said that there were now 1,200 Americans in Aberdeen. There is plenty of oil in America which they could exploit, but they have a policy not only of exploitation but of conservation. Will the hon. Gentleman direct his attention not simply to the present but to the future of Scotland and encourage the development of a policy which not only exploits oil but conserves some for future generations?

Mr. Sproat: That is a fair point, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State agrees with it. But it is a bit early to talk about the conservation of oil when we have not yet taken any out. 
Two further ways by which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State could encourage confidence in Aberdeen are these. First, he could taken the initiative and have a word with Aberdeen University about setting up an oil research unit there. He could perhaps give the university a grant to set up such a unit. The university would greatly appreciate that.


Secondly, I agree with the suggestion about moving the Petroleum Division of the Department of Trade and Industry to Aberdeen, and not just as a public relations exercise. It would be an additional sign of confidence in the area and it would also help in the dispersal of civil servants from London which we all want to see. But, with a fast-expanding industry where the technology is so little understood it is vital to have the people contributing to the decisions on the spot so that they know just what is happening as it develops and as industrial decisions are taken.
Last night we went through the remaining stages of the Harbours Development (Scotland) Bill, concerned largely with the Peterhead harbour development. I supported it because it appeared to provide some indication of the approach, the method and the pattern that this Government are adopting with regard to the exploitation of North Sea oil. It showed that the Government are on their toes ready to respond to each individual situation with regard to North Sea oil as it arises and to seize the maximum benefit from it for Scotland.
In this approach, I discern a number of welcome ingredients. The first is perhaps not of great importance to some right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite but it is very important to my constituents. It seems that my right hon. and hon. Friends have appreciated to the full the necessity to protect the fishing industry. We were extremely heartened by the assurances that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Home Affairs and Agriculture was able to give. There was considerable doubt in fishing quarters in Aberdeen that they were to be adequately protected when the first euphoria of oil spread over the community. Now we can give them the assurance that the industry will be protected and that their doubts can be set at rest.
The second ingredient that I am pleased to see is that we appear to be appreciating the vital importance of preserving the amenities in our development of North Sea oil. It is clear that we do not intend to leave behind modern industrial development the environmental scars which were the result of the first Industrial Revolution in central Scotland.

The third ingredient that I discern is that my right hon. Friend has shown a readiness to consult locally, a willingness to be influenced by that consultation, and a realisation that we are discussing not just industrial development but the development of a whole community.
Leaving aside those more general points, the fourth ingredient that I discern is that my right hon. Friend seems to be saying—and I am glad if he is—that the main job of the Government is not to develop North Sea oil. It is not even to partake, by putting public risk money into the creation of some quasi-nationalised industry such as that which certain right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite advocate. It is not to tie too tightly the hands of development companies so that development is delayed. Perhaps in this regard I might ask my hon. Friend whether he can say a little more about the discretionary conditions which are applied to development companies.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Gorbals (Mr. McElhone) referred to Sir William McEwan Younger. We all know that he wished the Government to go very much further in applying conditions. I am glad that he did. It is extremely healthy that in the Tory Party we can have conflicting ideas which do not have the murderous results that we see among right hon. and hon. Members opposite—[Interruption.] I do not know why the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) is laughing. If that were not the case in the Labour Party, the hon. Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon) would be sitting on the Opposition Front Bench today.

Mr. Gavin Strong: It may be that there is no contrast between the two main parties when a split occurs. It may be simply that the Press reacts differently.

Mr. Sproat: These are not matters over which the Press has any control. I will not list all the right hon. and hon. Members opposite whose faces we no longer see on the Opposition Front Bench. These are not matters for the Press. It is the way in which the Labour Party deals with a political split—

Mr. Ross: Where is Teddy?

Mr. Sproat: The real difference between the two parties is that when an hon. Member opposite disagrees with his party he is sacked. Hon. Members on this side of the House have a sense of honour, and they resign. That is the difference.

Mr. James Hamilton: Mr. James Hamilton indicated dissent.

Mr. Sproat: Apparently the hon. Member for Bothwell (Mr. James Hamilton) does not agree. Would he attempt to suggest that the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins) wanted to resign from the Shadow Cabinet? We all know that he was pushed out by the knives thrown into his back from the benches below the Gangway.
Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite have taken me away from my main theme. I was about to ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State whether he could quantify and exemplify the fifth discretionary condition, namely,
…the extent of the actual or planned contribution to the United Kingdom economy including influence on the balance of payments, and efforts to assist the growth of industry and employment.
I agree with that. I think that it should be a discretionary condition. However its value relies on the stringency with which it is applied. I should like one or two examples of that.
The fifth ingredient which I discern in the Government's policy is that it is agreed that the main job of the Government with regard to North Sea oil is to create the conditions which will allow and encourage others to maximise the benefits of the oil for the whole community. These conditions will be created by improving the infrastructure, the ports, the roads and I hope the airports, too. It will be done if Scottish business is encouraged to take advantage of these great opportunities. It will be done by means of regional and financial incentives, by exhortation, by pointing out the opportunities and the profit prospects, by helping the universities to set up oil research units, and by encouraging bodies like the Scottish Council to help and encourage others. I congratulate my right hon. Friends on what they have done already in this respect, especially to encourage Scottish business.
I enter one caveat. I am concerned about the extent of American dominance in certain stages of the oil exploration business. I welcome their investment. But we ought to be aware of the almost total dominance that American industry exercises in the drilling phase and in the pipe-laying phase of oil development.
Perhaps I might give some facts that I collected in Aberdeen the other weekend. I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will think about them. The exploration and drilling companies are predominantly American. Of 12 rigs, six are drilling for American companies. Another three are drilling for companies which are half American. Of all the drilling companies doing this, only one is not American. Rigs are built in many country but mostly in America, and not one is currently built in the United Kingdom. On the service and supply side the Americans are equally dominant. Of three cement supply companies active in Aberdeen, two are American and one is half American. The drilling mud companies are said to be all American. Of eight diving companies which bid recently for a job from North Sea Sun, four were American. Platform gear, off-shore treatment plants, bits, blow-out prevention equipment and so on are almost exclusively American made.
It is not the business of the Government to tell the industry to run its business. Some right hon. and hon. Members opposite say that it is, but it is not. However I hope that this Government will always be alert to point out the opportunities to Scottish business and to create the necessary framework for British and Scottish industry to take maximum advantage of the opportunities of North Sea oil. It is because I believe that my right hon. and hon. Friends are pursuing a policy which is alert, vigorous and far seeing that I intend to support their proposed Amendment to the Motion.

8.10 p.m.

Mr. Harry Ewing: I have sat through the debate since it began early this afternoon and listened to speeches from both sides of the House. The hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) and other hon. Gentlemen opposite have been seeking to show that the concern expressed by my


hon. Friends was not needed—indeed, that everything in the garden is lovely—that our worries are unfounded, and that tomorrow will be a much better day than today or yesterday.
I find it incredible that the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Brewis), who unfortunately is not in his place at the moment, should project the view that all we need to do is to disguise the truth, to project the image that Scotland is a thriving nation, and that industry will go there as a direct result. I do not think this occasion should be allowed to pass without taking the opportunity of projecting the picture as it really is in order that the concern of the Opposition and of the people of Scotland may be properly expressed.
On 9th September, 1969, the Prime Minister, then Leader of the Opposition, said:
We refuse to condemn large parts of the Kingdom to slow decline and decay, to dereliction and to persistent unemployment, in pursuit of old-fangled nineteenth century doctrine of laissez-faire. We shall act to bring new life to these areas suffering from high unemployment or depopulation.
The Prime Minister and the Conservative Government have acted. Unemployment now is higher than for 30 years and the population are departing in larger numbers than in recent years.
I want to deal with three specific aspects. The first is the dimensions of the problem which we are debating. The second concerns the problem of youth employment brought out by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Mary-hill (Mr. William Hannan). I think it would be on our heads if we did not make reference to the despairing plight of school leavers in Scotland. The third aspect concerns the development and exploration of North Sea oil.
First, the dimensions of the problem. I should like to quote from an article by Chris Baur, the industrial correspondent of the Scotsman, in which he brings together comments by various people concerned with the economic and unemployment problems in Scotland. In the first paragraph, Chris Baur quotes a statement by Dr. Gavin McCrone, speaking in Glasgow at the Scottish National Conference of the Society for Long Range

Planning. Dr. Gavin McCrone, who at that time was chief economic adviser to the Secretary of State for Scotland, was talking about the cost of full employment in Scotland:
A full employment policy for Scotland would require additional investment of about £200 million per year to a total of £1,000 million over a decade. This would be the scale of expenditure needed to correct the shortfall of at least 200,000 jobs left by the last ten years of regional development measures.
The calculation—the first attempt to cost a programme for balancing migration flows and reducing Scottish unemployment to about 2·5 per cent.—has been made by Dr. Gavin McCrone…Dr. McCrone told the two day Scottish national conference in Glasgow of the Society for Long Range Planning that to undertake the task implied raising the proportion of the Scottish gross domestic product from 18·8 per cent. To…25 per cent.
This is the size of the problem with which we are faced. Measures announced in the Industry Bill, which will be debated further tomorrow, are welcomed by the Opposition. But this great about-face, known as the Industry Bill, will go only some way to helping the problem. Even at this stage, before we are members of the Common Market—to use the language of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster yesterday, either first- or second-class members—there is a question mark regarding the permissibility of certain measures contained within the proposals which will be debated tomorrow when we join the Common Market on 1st January, 1973. Therefore, I enter a note of reservation here. No one can say with any degree of certainty what the lasting effect of the measures to be debated tomorrow will be on the Scottish economy.
What can be said, and what the Government certainly cannot deny, is that because of political dogma on their part, because of a stubbornness that is almost beyond belief, irreparable damage has been done to the Scottish economy by removing the measures which were brought in by the Labour Government. In the two years we have had to suffer a Conservative Government irreparable damage has been done to the Scottish economy. Indeed, the Government have been brought to their senses by pressures and force of events because they have had to do this about-face, known now as the Industry Bill.
I turn now to the second aspect of this rather tragic situation, namely, unemployment among school leavers. This situation can best be highlighted by quoting the experience of the South-East Scotland Electricity Board in the early part of this month. The Board advertised 18 apprenticeships for which it received, from all over Central Scotland, 207 applications. There is now a school of thought in Scotland that considers it to be much easier to be selected as a competitor in the Olympic Games than to obtain a job on leaving school. In one area which I represent, which is covered by the youth employment service in Stirling, the number of school leavers registered as unemployed on10th July this year was 185.

Mr. Dempsey: My hon. Friend has put forward an interesting argument about apprentices. I was hoping he might develop it and indicate the tragedy of apprentices in North Lanarkshire in their fourth year who are now being paid off with little hope, if any, of completing their apprenticeships—reminiscent of the blind alley employment of the hungry 1930s.

Mr. Ewing: I am grateful for that intervention. It allows me to bring out the point that I put down a Question to the Secretary of State for Employment only last week asking him to set up an inquiry into the problem which my hon. Friend highlights. The right hon. Gentleman, in a rather complacent reply, indicated that he did not think the problem was of such dimensions that it required an inquiry. I have experience of this problem in my constituency. Fourth and fifth-year apprentices are being paid off—some of them certainly on the termination of their apprenticeships but others with still a year to go. The tragedy is that many of these apprentices are day-release students. As a result of their employment being terminated they are finding it impossible to continue their studies. Another result is that the certificates which they were aiming to gain are now beyond their reach. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention, and I hope that the Secretary of State for Scotland will convey to the Secretary of State for Employment the deep concern that is felt over the problem.
The figures for Stirling show that 185 school leavers were registered as unemployed at 10th July compared with 122 in July, 1971, and very much lower figures—indeed, going back to none at all—in the middle 'sixties. The figures portray a picture of utter despair. Only today I was speaking to the youth employment officer in Stirling, and he told me—and this is common finding by youth employment officers—that more school leavers will return to schools when they reopen, not because they want to go back—which means they will be unwilling students—but because they have been unable to find jobs.
Earlier today reference was made to the graduate who was not invited to take part in the short list. Scotland is fast rearing the best-educated unemployed people in the world, and one of the greatest tragedies of the situation is the amount of unemployment amongst school leavers and the youth of this country. Vandalism and the increase in the crime figures among young people cannot possibly be divorced from the fact that they are finding it so difficult to get a job.
I want to complete the youth unemployment picture by giving the figures which my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars) brought out in a written answer on 25th July. I shall be fair to the Government and go back to 1963, their last year of office under the present regime. In that year, the number of unemployed boys under 18 was 4,106, and the number of unemployed girls under 18 was 2,126. In June, 1972, after variations of depths, humps and other distortions, the Government succeeded in raising the figure for boys under 18 to the disgraceful total of 5,673, and for girls, to 2,993. I could go on all night on the subject of youth unemployment, but I content myself with saying that those figures present a despairing picture.
Mention has been made of Oceanspan. One feature of this which has never been mentioned is that in the introduction to Oceanspan 2 the Scottish Council made it clear that Oceanspan could be introduced whether or not Great Britain joined the Common Market, and here I want to enter the reservation of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, which said that as a prerequisite to its


support for Britain's entry into the Common Market there ought to be the introduction of one Oceanspan and, secondly, the development of Hunterston. Over the years there has been a demand for far-reaching projects such as Oceanspan and Hunterston to be introduced.
North Sea oil is of interest both to my constituents and to me. I have in my constituency the centre of the oil industry in Scotland through the BP refinery at Grangemouth. A great deal has been said about the need to secure the maximum advantage to the Scottish economy of the discovery of North Sea oil. I warn the House—andI include in this warning some who may be on my side of the House—that the people of Scotland—and I am no narrow nationalist—are in no mood to see the advantages which can be gained from the discovery of North Sea oil slip through their fingers. Anyone who kids himself that the people of Scotland will stand idly by and see the economic advantages go to other countries before they get their full share of the benefits to help repair the economy should think again.
There is an unanswerable case for the establishment of a second oil refinery in Scotland. Production figures show that it could be worked to more than capacity. BP has announced that by the early 1980s it will be exporting nearly 20 million tons of oil per year. The capacity of the plant at Grangemouth is 12 million tons, and even if BP increases its capacity to 20 million tons, it will still export 20 million tons, and nothing has been said about the other oil strikes in the North Sea.
On the question of jobs arising from the discovery of North Sea oil, I recently received a complaint from a constituent—and I shall be careful what I say, because my secretary may well have written to the Secretary of State for Scotland, to the Secretary of State for Employment and to various other people—about the American firm referred to by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South recruiting untrained labour at the expense of available trained labour. I am not suspicious, but I wonder whether behind all this there is a move by that company to try to obtain cheap labour by recruiting untrained labour and carrying out its own training, at the expense of trained labour

which cannot get jobs. I shall say no more about that, because I have written a lengthy document to the Ministers I have mentioned and no doubt they will refer to it.
The hon. Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour) referred to the fact that finds of North Sea oil would be greater than the domestic needs of Scotland. Although the hon. Member is not now present, I am sure that he was conveying the impression that all we ought to seek to do was to refine in Scotland only the oil needed to meet domestic demands. I ask hon. Members to look at oil history. I say this advisedly and in no derogatory fashion. In the history of the Middle East oil-producing nations there is ample evidence to show that those nations insist on the oil companies establishing in the producing country refining processes which go beyond the domestic needs of that country.
There is ample evidence to support the view that all the finds of North Sea oil ought to be refined in the country off whose shores those finds were made. I say that only to emphasise the claim that there is a need for a second oil refinery in Scotland.

Mr. Sproat: Following up that argument, would the hon. Gentleman agree that if it should turn out that oil discovered in the Norwegian sector could be more cheaply piped to Scotland, he would recommend that we should not accept that that oil be refined in Scotland?

Mr. Ewing: That was a pathetic intervention. If Norwegian oil strikes were to be piped into Scotland, Scotland and the whole of Britain, and all concerned, would welcome the additional work with open arms.

Mr. Sproat: What about the Norwegians?

Mr. Ewing: What the Norwegians do is a matter for the Norwegian Government. If the Norwegian Government decided that their oil would be cheaper if piped to and refined in Scotland, I see no objection. I am surprised at the hon. Member raising such a frivolous point.
There is a price for gaining access to a country's resources. For Scotland, part of that price should be the insistence


that the oil companies refine the oil in Scotland. The choice before us is one of priorities—of deciding whether the oil finds in the North Sea are to be merely a replacement for the Middle East oil for European markets, or whether these off-shore resources are to be a means of financing the economic recovery of Scotland. It is the latter choice that we should make.
The present Government must further change their outlook and thinking. Many men producing many ideas—I am tempted to say "from many minds"—will not solve Scotland's problems. The appointment of rear-admirals—this has been referred to twice in the House today—to positions as important as deputy chairman of the Highlands and Islands Development Board will not solve the unemployment problems of Scotland. The Secretary of State may say that that is a cheap remark, but when we see a man who, on his own admission, as reported in the Daily Record, a rear-admiral—

Mr. J. Bruce-Gardyne: He has never been a rear-admiral.

Mr. Ewing: The individual concerned has stated that he was looking around for something to do. The fairy godmother, the Secretary of State for Scotland, has appointed him to a £7,500 per year job, a very important job which will decide the economic future of that part of the country. Perhaps we shall be debating that matter next week.
There is a feeling abroad now that the Secretary of State's voice in the Cabinet is much weaker than it has ever been. I have heard it said, after deputations and interviews, that it is noticeable that the new Minister appointed in the Department of Trade and Industry plays a more prominent part in Scottish affairs than does the Secretary of State. If that is true, the Secretary of State had better take a thought to himself because, whatever else happens, he will be held responsible for the present condition of Scotland.
I am happy to support my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Motion.

8.35 p.m.

Mr. Ian MacArthur: One aspect of this serious debate on which all right hon. and hon. Members can agree is that the rate of

unemployment in Scotland is intolerable and represents the greatest waste of our largest national resource that is imaginable.
It is all very well to point to trends, but the hon. Member for Stirling and Falkirk Burghs (Mr. Ewing) would do well to remember that a trend does not set in until it begins. The hon. Gentleman was ready to rebuke my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and his Government colleagues for the present high rates of unemployment, but it is not unreasonable for me to remind the hon. Gentleman that the bad trend set in under the Labour Government and then worsened. The better trend began under the Conservative Government. I applaud the action that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and his colleagues have taken to improve the trend and to improve the outlook for the Scottish people.

Mr. Ewing: I should like to console the hon. Gentleman by saying that the reason I did not go further back on the question of youth unemployment was that the figures under the Tory Government from 1951 onwards were just as bad as the figures under the present Tory Government. The hon. Gentleman should study the trends closely.

Mr. MacArthur: If the hon. Gentleman wishes to make historical excursions, I suggest that he consults the textbooks. The best textbook of all is that published by the Secretary of State in the Labour Government which demonstrates clearly that the largest increase in employment in Scotland took place in the last years under the previous Conservative Government. We increased employment. We provided more jobs. More jobs were created in Scotland proportionally than in the United Kingdom as a whole. The hon. Gentleman should not try to get away with that deceit, because it was untrue. The trend improved under the Tories then, as it is improving now. It does not do Scotland any service for an hon. Member to paint a picture which is distorted and gives a false impression of what is happening.
If the hon. Gentleman wishes to study the facts, let him turn to the White Paper published by his right hon. Friend whose sepulchre he sought to whiten.


It is the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) who stands accused, with his bogus forecasts, his false assertions, and his missing of his own target by 142,000 jobs, which is more than the present number of unemployed in Scotland.

Mr. Ross: What is the hon. Gentleman talking about?

Mr. MacArthur: In the right hon. Gentleman's White Paper published in January, 1966, he promised the people of Scotland 60,000 extra jobs by 1970. By 1970 there had been not the creation of one extra job but the loss of 82,000 jobs. That is the fact. Let the right hon. Gentleman, who ignores figures he does not care to look at, study those figures. He will see that when he was Secretary of State he lost 82,000 jobs. On top of that, he failed to create the 60,000 extra jobs that he promised. Let him add the two figures and he will find that it makes 142,000 lost job opportunities, more than the present unemployment figure in Scotland.

Mr. Donald Stewart: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman is using inaccurate information. The figure I received the other day for the number of jobs that had disappeared was 85,000.

Mr. MacArthur: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman. The figure that I got was up-to-date on the last day of a month. Perhaps his figure was later by a few days, because the position got worse every day under the Labour Government.
One point on which I can agree with the hon. Member for Stirling and Falkirk Burghs is as to the relationship between education and employment prospects, in which regard Scotland has much to offer. It is not immodest for any Scot to claim that our standards in education are very high, and we produce every year a growing proportion of highly educated secondary school leavers—and, happily, even more soon, now that the school leaving age is to be raised. The great tragedy in Scotland has been that there have not always been enough jobs to satisfy the young people leaving our schools.
One should not necessarily try to block all emigration from Scotland, although, of course, we should all deplore the high figures under the Labour Government. There is in Scotland a great questing

spirit which encourages people to make their careers abroad. This has helped to create a new richness in the world which would not otherwise have been there, and it is something which we should always expect and not necessarily resist. But what we should all try to create is a state of things in which there is a job for every talented Scot who wishes to make his life and career in his native country.
Not only do we have a standard of excellence in education, but part of that excellence springs from the variety of education and educational opportunity which we provide in Scotland. This has not only been recognised by all of us on this side but it is known throughout Scotland and far beyond. Some years ago, I remember, the Scottish Council in one of its splendid publications called attention to the great variety of education in Scotland and its excellence, pointing to the availability of this variety for incoming people from the South.
I think it a great pity, to put it no higher, that right hon. and hon. Members opposite, carried away by their dogmatic approach to education, should have made such a great and damaging assault on the very variety of education which has contributed to the excellence in our educational fabric.
The great argument which has raged over the years about local authority fee-paying schools was only the beginning. Right hon. and hon. Members opposite attacked the local authority fee-paying schools in the cause of a bogus egalitarianism, and in that attack they were removing freedom of choice from parents who could not find their choice in any other way. It is clear that the next stage in their attack will be a campaign against the grant-aided schools. That is clear from the speeches made the other day. This, in turn, will pave the way for an attack on independent schools. Hon. Members opposite believe in one single system; they deny one of the main reasons for the excellence of Scottish education, the variety which we have produced over the years, a variety applauded and respected throughout the world.

Mr. Eadie: The hon. Gentleman should have a talk with his hon. Friend the Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour), who was a member of the


Fife County Council at the same time as I was, jointly and co-operatively, we abolished fee-paying schools in the Cupar and St. Andrews area. The hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) is insulting the people who live in that area by what he is saying—and involving his hon. Friend in it, too—because they would never go back to fee-paying schools in their area.

Mr. MacArthur: That is a shaky point. In Edinburgh and Glasgow, as the hon. Gentleman knows, the local authority fee-paying schools hold a position in education never equalled elsewhere, and the abolition of those schools, which the Opposition intend, would remove from our two great cities a range and quality of education which has been the envy of Britain. It is a great pity that they are now extending their attack on variety in education to the grant-aided schools and in the independent sector.
It has often been said, and rightly, that today's unemployment is rather different in nature from the unemployment of the past. It has been said, I believe, that in Britain last year we produced rather more than in the previous year but with 400,000 fewer people at work—

Mr. Sillars: In manufacturing industry.

Mr. MacArthur: In manufacturing industry, I agree. This presents a new problem to which we must set our minds; namely the consequences of the technological revolution, which itself has produced a squeeze on manufacturing industry and shaken out a lot of surplus labour. Perhaps the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars), who is well experienced in these matters, will agree that there is still a large layer of underused capacity in manufacturing industry. It will take us a long time to break through that capacity barrier. It is not until we do so that we shall see unemployment fall significantly. That poses many questions which we must consider; for example, the way in which we should think about leisure and the working week, holidays, and so on, in a new concept of employment thinking. However, that is not a matter for this debate.
Scotland may have been susceptible to certain trends. My hon. Friend the Mem-

ber for Galloway (Mr. Brewis) was right to point to the predominance of the branch factory syndrome in the run-down in Scottish employment. I have experience of that in my constituency. Perhaps it is reasonable to suggest that in Scotland a much larger proportion of employment is provided by the private family firm than in the United Kingdom as a whole. We may be susceptible, because of our tax structure, to the blandishments and attractions of the takeover bid and the merger offer. It may follow from that that the family firm which is often one of the best employers, can disappear in the maw of diversification and spread of interest from the South, and suddenly find itself converted from a local employer into the branch factory of an English factory. I think with regret of the developments which have caused the run-down of the Smedley factories in my constituency.
I shall make one other constituency point which arises from the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Galloway. My hon. Friend made some reference to the run-down of defence establishments in the periphery of Britain. Although I do not go all the way with his argument, I ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland to bear in mind that just outside Perth, by the end of 1973, there will be a substantial loss of jobs in the Royal Navy store depot at Almond bank. The decision to close that depot was taken by the previous Labour Administration. That decision was confirmed by the present Government. I shall make no party point about that. The decision was not based on party politics, but was a reflection of the changing defence requirements. Nobody would argue that one should artificially continue employment where there is no defence need for that employment.
What is much more important is that when we have several years' notice of a run-down, as we had with Almondbank, every arm of Government should be turned to finding alternative employment for the people concerned. It is no use Ministers saying, as one or two have said to me, that the impact of the closure will not be as large as I fear because jobs elsewhere in the defence structure will be found for many people employed at Almondbank. It is no good turning to my constituents who are employed at


Almondbank and saying, "Do not worry. There is nothing to worry about. Leave home, go down to England, and jobs will be provided. Some may want to do that, but it is a complete disruption of their lives. From the point of view of the local economy, every person who moves out to make his job or career elsewhere is a lost job opportunity to an area which needs more job opportunities, not fewer. I hope that my right hon. Friend will respond to this appeal. I know that attempts are being made to find other employment for the workers at Almondbank.
Scotland looks to the Secretary of State as the co-ordinating Minister in matters of this kind. I hope that he and the Under-Secretary of State for Development will devote all their energies to trying to find alternative Government employment or to encouraging the development of private employment in Perth between now and the end of next year so that there will be no loss of job opportunities.
I turn to another area of employment in Scotland, and that is to the service industries. I listened with interest to the speech of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) in opening the debate, and it was curious to hear him lecturing the House about the importance of the service industries in Scotland. However, I agree with him that the service industries are of the utmost importance in Scotland. I recall that his colleagues expressed similar regard for the service industries in the discredited White Paper on the Scottish economy issued in January, 1966. In that document the Labour Government, which was then led in Scotland by the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock, rightly called attention to the important rôle of the service industries in the Scottish economy. They are important because they provide over half the jobs in Scotland and also because they generate growth in other areas of employment.
I remember reading the 1966 White Paper and saying to myself "Thank goodness! At last the Labour Party recognises the critical rôle of the service industries in the employment pattern of the United Kingdom." But what did the Labour Government do to recognise the import-

ance of the service industries and to provide the encouragement which they promised in their 1966 White Paper? What they did three months later was to slap on SET—a tax which cost Scotland so much. Just before the General Election they promised to encourage the service industries; just after the election, with the vote safely out of the way, they imposed this vicious tax.
I well remember the impact of the tax in the Highland counties and the complaints which were made.

Mr. Hamish Gray (Ross and Cromarty): Indeed there were.

Mr. MacArthur: My hon. Friend says "Indeed there were". What was the Government's reaction? The right hon. Member for Kilmarnock, the then Secretary of State for Scotland, turned on the Highlands and snapped at them that they were whining. It was little wonder that they complained. The SET, introduced by the Labour Government and increased twice by them, took more out of the Highland counties than the total amount put in by the Highlands and Islands Development Board in all its splendid work.
I listened to what was said by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton about the service industries, and I thought that perhaps there had been a change of heart. But what are Labour Members proposing now for the service industries? Many of the service industries apparently are to be nationalised as a sop to the Left-wing paymasters of the Labour Party. The insurance companies of Scotland are to be seized. Does the Scottish Labour Party seriously propose to nationalise the General Accident Company in Perth, the Scottish Widows' Fund and Life Assurance Society, the Scottish Provident Institution and all the other great Scottish insurance companies? Of course they propose to take such action. We see it set out in their own official document.
Do they intend to stifle the enterprise of these great companies which have made such a large contribution to the balance of payments and have such a large rôle to play in our invisible exports? If this is what they intend to do, then they should spell it out clearly to the thousands of people who are employed


by these insurance companies. Those in my constituency who are employed by the General Accident Company want to know the truth about Labour policy. They do not want to hear any shilly-shallying evasion, such as that which we heard from the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Ronald King Murray) in an intervention earlier today.
My constituents want to know whether they will be trapped in the net of Socialist dogma. The hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Leith said that this new Socialist horror comic was merely a document for discussion. What on earth does that mean? Is the Labour Party serious about it, or is it not? Are hon. Members opposite having fun? Is he slender hon. and learned Member for Leith putting himself in the guise of the Fat Boy and saying "I will tell you stories that will make your flesh creep"? Is the policy document serious, or is it not? Is it fact, or fiction?
It is not enough for hon. Members opposite to say that this is a document for discussion—that they are going to have fun and games at the Labour Party conference. It is not enough for them to say that the leaders of the Labour Party in the House decide these matters, and that there is no question of policy being laid down by the faceless men at the party conference. We want to know whether these great companies are to be nationalised. Will the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock, who preaches support for the service industries when in Government, support them or nationalise them? If he is going to nationalise them, let him stand up and say so—and let him tell my constituents in Perth, who want to know, because they work for these great insurance companies which are now under threat by the Labour Party.
Let us have none of this equivocating nonsense. Let us have the truth. Let us know what the Labour Party really proposes. Let us know who will decide—right hon Gentlemen opposite or the faceless men at Blackpool, or whoever it may be. Whichever group it is, I shudder just the same. It is of great concern what the Labour Party means to do about the service industries. It is of critical economic significance to Scotland,

because the service industries employ over half our people.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Gorbals (Mr. McElhone), in an interesting speech, rightly said that what matters most in Scotland is the state of the total economy of the United Kingdom. Scotland cannot prosper in isolation—nor can we believe that regional inducements are decisive by themselves; all that they can do is to tilt the balance in favour of Scotland when the economy is growing. They cannot achieve much more.
What matters much more than the pattern of regional inducements is the need for a general growth in the economy—and that, thank goodness, is happening now, because of the measures of this Government. Hon. Members opposite who paint such a gloomy picture and pretend that there is no growth should be reminded that this Government reduced the burden of taxation by more than £3,000 million in three years. There is an interesting little sum, showing that for every day that the Conservative Government have been in office tax rates have fallen, on average, at a rate of over £4 million, compared with an increase of £2,000 million and more when the Labour Party was in power.
There has been a tremendous injection of purchasing power and growth into the economy, and on top of that a large increase in central Government investment in Scotland, the special measures that my right hon. Friend has introduced, and the great action—unparalleled in our history—taken by the Government to generate employment and growth in Scotland. Against that background I become rather depressed when I hear hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite paint such a dismal picture of the situation in Scotland.
Let them read an industrial trends survey, issued by the CBI, to whose words I listen more readily than I do to those of hon. Members opposite. That document shows that there is a restoration of growth in the economy at last. Let them reflect on the fact that Scotland will be not only a part of the United Kingdom but a part of Europe, with all the prospect of growth that that entails. The discovery of oil is not only the greatest economic advance in Scotland this century, as my right hon. Friend the


Secretary of State said, but probably the most important economic advance for the country for all time. We have hardly begun to grasp the potential of it for our people.
Let us remember that we have, thanks to the efforts of all Governments, a much broader base of employment in Scotland, a much wider variety than ever before and one which gives us a springboard for the period of growth that we are about to enter. We should not talk about depression and gloom in Scotland. We must have a spirit of confidence and optimism, because that will attract new industry and it will keep our young people in Scotland and encourage them to make their careers there. Confidence and optimism are totally justified by the better economic outlook for Scotland today.

9.02 p.m.

Dr. M. S. Miller: It is tragic that speeches of a filibustering nature, such as we have just heard, full of complacency and smugness about the Scottish economy, should be made when hon. Members on the Opposion side have genuine points to make. To hear the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) speak one would not think that 138,500 people were unemployed in Scotland. I like listening to the hon. Member's robustness usually, but on this occasion it was deplorable and we should not have to listen to time-wasting speeches of that nature when there are more important matters to be discussed. It is regrettable that the situation in Scotland is so bleak and so dismal and that because of the actions of the Conservatives we have to discuss a Motion such as that which we are discussing tonight.
Of course, they can produce figures in mitigation of their dismal performance over the last couple of years, but it cannot be denied that the position in Scotland is worse today than at any time since the Industrial Revolution began. The Government seem to have no coherent and constructive policy of their own. They are minions of Whitehall. Whitehall calls the tune and they dance to it. Now it will be the oil barons who will play on their pipes, and the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State and his

colleagues will have to do a macabre dance to it.
In Scotland male unemployment is nearly 8½ per cent. In Glasgow, as my hon. Friend the Member for Maryhill (Mr. William Hannan) pointed out, it is almost 12 per cent. A glance at the statistical tables industry by industry gives a clear indication of the picture. In the manufacturing and construction sectors, in the gas, electricity, water, mining and quarrying, metal manufacturers, shipbuilding and marine engineering, vehicles, textiles, bricks, pottery, glass and cement industries fewer people are employed year by year. The figures show a reduction in the employment level in Glasgow, and all over Scotland, and hon. Members know how difficult it is for young people leaving school to get jobs. Only in industry associated with insurance, banking, finance and business, the professional and scientific services and public administration and defence is there an increase in employment. That is not surprising in view of the kind of Government we have had for the last two years and it is part of the sorry story of the run-down of our basic industries—coal, shipbuilding, textiles and the steel industry.
Terrible and tragic as the unemployment situation is and as the rundown of Scottish industry is, there is another aspect of the Scottish scene that alarms me and fills me with considerable foreboding and that is the loss of Scotland's population. Once again the floodgates are open and Scotland is being denuded of people whom she can ill-afford to lose. I estimate that we have suffered a net loss of more than 1 million people from Scotland in the past 30 years or so. It is worth taking a moment to compare Scotland with other European countries which had a pre-war population of between 5 million and 7,500,000.
In 1939, Scotland's population was just under 5 million, and it is now 5·22 million, an increase of 4·6 per cent. In that time the population of Austria has increased from 6·75 million to 7·5 million, an increase of more than 10 per cent. Switzerland, which had fewer people than Scotland in 1939, 4·2 million, now has a population of 6·3 million, an increase of almost 50 per cent. I do not want to go through the complete list, but only the


Irish Republic has had a smaller increase of population.
The difference is not related to birth rates and death rates. Although the mortality rate in Scotland is slightly higher than in England and Wales, it is cancelled out by the slightly higher birth rate. It must therefore be calculated that the natural increase should have produced a population of more than 6 million in Scotland today.
North Sea oil has been mentioned: I call it Scottish oil. It certainly could bring about a marked improvement in the Scottish economy. It is calculated that there are 50 billion barrels in the area—more than 8 per cent. of the world's known total. But I have figures which give an alarming picture of the way in which the industry is in the hands of companies that are neither British nor Scottish based and are financed mainly by American capital.
We do not want to be fobbed off with explanations about the oil industry being capital-intensive rather than labour-intensive. The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) alluded to this in his speech. In any case the technological revolution makes it imperative that all industrial nations embark upon a policy of teaching new skills and reverting to many old crafts and skills. We must harness this technological revolution to our own needs, current needs, needs of the near future and of the not-too-distant future. I see nothing wrong with recreating and redeveloping old hand skills that we once had for working in wood, brass, wool, and so on. The riches produced by a smaller work force must in some way redound to the benefit of all and not be hogged by a small number. There is a considerable artificiality in any case in the mass production of goods for waste instead of use.
Reverting again to the oil industry, I do not think that we have been told the whole truth about oil finds off the coast of Scotland. We seem to have handed this industry on a plate to private enterprise which, as I have said, is almost completely United States-dominated.
The Government have lost their way in a maze of Tory political doctrine and they stand condemned as much for their inaction in many respects as for some

of the actions which have brought about the present position in Scotland. I am led to the conclusion that, hell-bent on getting us into the Common Market at any cost, the Government are standing meekly by while Scotland becomes an industrial backwater. It is time that they produced a policy which is Scotland-oriented and designed to benefit the Scottish people, or went out of office and allowed another Government to do that job.

9.10 p.m.

Mr. William Ross: We have had a very full debate, although it is a pity we lost so much time earlier. I sometimes think it is rather unfair that those who have the debate on a Thursday afternoon lose so much time over business and other statements. Quite a number of hon. Members who would have liked to speak in the debate have been kept out.
I welcome the Minister for Industry to our debate. We always relish a change of brew. We thought that we might have had the Under-Secretary of State for Development, but we look for ward to hearing what I believe is the hon. Gentleman's second speech in his new capacity. I hope that he appreciates his task, because, despite the effort of the hon. Member for Perth and East Perth shire (Mr. MacArthur) to pour some light and brightness on the economic scene, and the similar effort of the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat)), by concentrating upon Aberdeen and talking about the boom town and the influx of Americans, anyone who looks objectively upon the Scottish scene must express concern. There has been an increase of production, but we are still losing jobs. If anyone is still interested in the numbers game, when the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire spoke about how many jobs we lost when I was Secretary of State, the last figure he gave was about 85,000—

Mr. MacArthur: It was 145,000.

Mr. Ross: I am talking about loss of jobs, not what the hon. Gentleman talked about—adding targets and so on to the figure. I took a note of the time the hon. Gentleman came in. It was a quarter to eight.

Mr. MacArthur: That is untrue.

Mr. Ross: Most of the time thereafter he has been away.

Mr. MacArthur: Mr. MacArthur rose

Mr. Ross: The fact is that from July, 1970, to December. 1971

Mr. MacArthur: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If a right hon. Gentleman makes a totally false statement about an hon. Member, is there no procedure whereby the hon. Member can explain that he has been present throughout the debate?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. E. L. MaMalieu): The hon. Gentleman apparently knows his way round the procedure.

Mr. Ross: Between July, 1970, and the end of last December we lost 62,000 jobs. More jobs than that have been lost in total under the present Government. The latest figures projecting the average given in the Economic Bulletin show that the number of redundancies in Scotland since the present Government took over, a period of just under two years, is over 80,000. That is a pretty sombre picture.
If everyone available for employment were employed, there would be reason for optimism. It is no use talking about confidence unless the basis for confidence exists. We are asking the Government to be realistic. Only by recognising the facts will they be able to introduce the right policies.
The unemployment figure of 138,000 is the highest we have ever had in the month of July since the end of the war. I have a chart in my room—I have kept it for years, month by month—showing the unemployment figures. We try to take a certain amount of confidence and cheer from the fact that if we take away the school leavers and adult students—that is a new one that has crept in—things look better. We should appreciate that going back over the last 12 years the average increase between June and July has been 4,000, yet this year it was 9,000. There were school leavers in those years, too. Taking the movement of the figures from now until January of next year, the average increase is 17,000. We can see the sort of picture that emerges and why my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars) spoke as he did.
I know that the Government are to be saved by the school bell because in

December of this year there will be no 15-year-olds able to leave school. As from 1st September the school leaving age goes up. But let us not get overjoyed. If there are not so many people unemployed it is not because of a pick up in employment; it is because the children who should have been coming on to the employment market are at school. This is one of the reasons why fewer people are unemployed—the fact that more youngsters have been staying on at school. That is why I object to the silly numbers game that has been played over the years.

Mr. MacArthur: The right hon. Gentleman was playing it in his bogus promises.

Mr. Ross: This chart I have relates to unemployment and that is a figure from which we cannot get away, like the figures given by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. William Hannan) in a good speech about the Glasgow position. We can take particular areas such as Glasgow and Lanarkshire where the position is much worse, where the figures for male unemployment are 10 per cent. and in some cases 11 per cent. or 12 per cent. We have also to consider the duration of unemployment and the number of men who have been made unemployed and who know that they will not get another job.
There are youngsters who have not had a job since they left school. I was on Clydebank the other night, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, and a man who once was employed in John Brown's was telling me that his son had just left school aged 16½. He went to the youth employment officer and asked him what was available. He was one of 600. There was one apprentice engineer place available, there was one apprentice hair-dressing vacancy, there was one job available as a tea-boy in a building unit and a similar vacancy in a shop. That was all.
Translate that into the life of a family and of a community and there is justification for our concern. It does not end with the unemployment figures. The Secretary of State did not give us any reason for hope with industrial development certificates, new projects coming forward and the number of jobs which would be produced by then. There was a good reason why he did not do so—


because it is not very helpful. When he listed the causes of unemployment and the difficulties, he might have quoted his own Scottish Economic Bulletin published by the Scottish Office, issue No. 3 for this summer. While it does its best to be fairly factual it says:
The current low level of investment is indicated by the statistics for industrial development certificates in Scotland.
When the speculative factory building, the advance factory building, was taken out one discovered how disappointing—and it must have been disappointing for Ministers after all their effort—the position was.
The CB1 surveys have been quoted. I well recall what used to be said in the Scottish Office about them. I was advised that they had never been right. I wonder whether the same can be said about the advice given in the Scottish Office. I wish that something a little more substantial than the CBI surveys had been quoted. The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry must know the low level of investment in the private sector. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Gorbals (Mr. McElhone) called it a crisis in confidence—a very good phrase. What is the reason for that crisis? In October, 1970, the Government said "We shall cut public expenditure. We shall hammer the local authorities"—and the cheers of the hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) were louder than anybody's. The hon. Gentleman is no longer PPS to the Secretary of State for Scotland for a very good reason—because he is concerned about the change in policies.
That change in policies followed after two disastrous years. Tonight we have seen newspapers for the first time for some days, and they did not make very good reading. Other policies were announced at the time, and the Industrial Relations Bill was one of them. I hope that the Government will not take two years to change their mind about that. They changed their mind about their industrial incentives policy after the disasters it caused. The latest shipping bulletin from the information office of the Shipbuilders and Repairers National Association states:
…the intake of new orders during the second quarter of the year continued at a very low level. Basic reasons for this situation

are the continuing low level of freight rates, coupled more recently with the uncertainties over currencies. In addition, however, it is known that some owners are refraining from placing contracts until there is a Government decision on whether financial incentives should be made available to ship owners placing orders for new tonnage.
No joy is to be gained from the drop in new orders. This does not simply apply to the Clyde.
I was surprised that the Secretary of State had the temerity to mention Govan Shipbuilders. The comprehending of three yards within Govan Shipbuilders was not initially the desire of the Government. It was the fight of the workers which changed the situation at the John Brown yards. We remember the scathing remarks which were made about the cost—£34 million in respect of Govan Shipbuilders and, according to the figures I received at Clydebank the other night, a likely £12 million in respect of Marathon. The Minister has had his education in industrial matters. It was a crash course. I hope that he has learned his lesson. But the people who suffered most as a result of that education were the people of Scotland, with redundancies month after month. But what will they do about shipbuilding? When shall we get a decision from the Government on long-term help for the shipbuilding industry? These are the people in the industry themselves telling us. They are waiting. They do not want to wait much longer.
Another aspect of this crisis of confidence is that, having heard so much about the opportunities for expansion within the EEC, one would have thought that this dynamism that we were to import would have begun to show some indication in Scotland. It has not. Many people are beginning to be concerned that the initial effect will be very much worse than the Government have been prepared to admit—

Mr. MacArthur: Nonsense.

Mr. Ross: These are the facts. It is no use running away from them. This is why the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) is so wrong in his approach to Scottish politics. That is why he can make the kind of speech that he did tonight, forgetting that behind all these figures is the future prosperity of Scotland.
Steel was another one today—

Mr. James Hamilton: No one mentioned it.

Mr. Ross: Not a single hon. Member opposite mentioned it. The Secretary of State told us only what we knew already. However, I have the feeling that the Secretary of State is convinced that whatever the British Steel Corporation says that it intends to do in Scotland is right. But he is terrified that Lord Melchett has made another speech, about which he has not been told. Lord Melchett made another speech yesterday. He said that it was vital that we got 33 million tons and that if we did not there was no prospect of a green field site development. Are we to be told anything about it tonight? Do the Government know about that speech and do they agree with it?
Are we to get the Hunterston development? The Marco Polo of politics, the Secretary of State for Scotland, discovered Hunterston. He keeps telling us so. In the same year he discovered oil in the North Sea. But it is three years ago that he was telling us about Hunterston and saying that we must avoid unnecessary, long delays. He followed that up later by talking about development not just at Hunterston but about a steel complex. He told us that it had been proved in other parts of the world, notably in Japan, that if steelworks are sited near to an oil terminal transport, other costs are reduced. He told us we must get on with it. That was three years ago. He did not talk about a steel complex today. He talked just about other developments. Clearly he is already in retreat.
Now we have a new Minister in the Scottish Office, Lord Polwarth. He was the head of the Scottish Council for Development and Industry. That body has never been slow in putting forward its demands in respect of steel and Hunterston. It has said:
…while the future of the industry and its customers in Scotland would be seriously affected if the new plant was built elsewhere (than at Hunterston) the main conclusion is that the future of the British steel industry is, in fact, similarly tied to the exploitation of the advantages offered by a Scottish location".
Can we look forward to the announcement tonight? I hope so sincerely. Or are we to look forward merely to these 7,500 redundancies and the cutting-down

of the Scottish steel industry? Youngsters are queueing up to get jobs. They will not get them in the steel industry. The work force is reduced by 7,500.
We want modernisation. We realise that it will mean fewer jobs. But we want an expanded steel industry to take up some of the slack, and we want a green field development at Hunterston. If there have to be jobs lost and, in the phasing-out, redundancies, we want new jobs phased in. But there is no indication in the Government's plans that that is possible.
The Government take pride in their Amendment to the Industry Bill; but that Bill, which has not yet been passed, has grave weaknesses. Indeed, we have already pointed to shipbuilding. There is also the question of REP and labour-intensive industry which requires far more help than it will get, strangely enough, from a Government including an hon. Gentleman who used to complain about the subsidies and help we gave to capital-intensive industry. Now the Government are giving more help to capital-intensive industry within the Industry Bill and at the same time threatening to cut down the help given to labour-intensive industry.
There is no doubt that oil will be a tremendously big factor in Scottish industry in future.

Mr. MacArthur: Oh!

Mr. Ross: I wish the hon. Gentleman would not behave like a child. I have always considered that we have not yet fully realised the potential of oil around our coast. I have said publicly that we were right, concerning the original licences for exploration, to take the course we did to try to maximise the exploration No one knows what is there until something happens one day and a strike is made. Even then we do not know whether oil is there in commercial quantities until further developments take place. But we now know that there is oil in commercial quantities in the North Sea and probably in other seas around our coast. As soon as that happens I consider the position is utterly and absolutely changed.
Earlier one of my hon. Friends asked about co-ordination regarding the rate of exploitation. Some people seem to


think it does not matter to this country. It surely matters how we can properly phase in our ability to plan for and get our industries to benefit to the maximum point and avoid some of the social difficulties about which the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) spoke. It is vital that the Government take control of the rate of exploitation. They would be crazy not to do so. I hope we shall hear something about that from the Minister.
The Government must maximise the benefit to be derived from oil for this country. We have had other great industries. We had a mining industry. We see the scars in Scotland. Ask the miners what Scotland got from the mining industry. We must ensure that some great part of the benefits from this new potential goes to the people of Scotland. It can be done by way of royalties, licensing, and State participation. It can be done by putting into the licensing conditions provisions about the landing and refining of the oil. My hon. Friend the Member for Stirling and Falkirk Burghs (Mr. Ewing) made the point that we could have more refining capacity in Scotland. I think that this is very likely.
We should have State participation. It is done in Norway. It was done in Britain a long time ago through BP. We have already nationalised the oil, because anything that is discovered here, according to our legislation, belongs to this country—to the nation. Surely we are entitled, in the exploitation of the oil, to a considerable share. I recall a phrase used by the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Donald Stewart)—somebody else gets the cash and we get the pollution and the problems. We must avoid that at all times.
The Norwegians have said that there must be State participation on a carried interest basis, which means that the investment starts when the oil is discovered in commercial quantities. It is on that basis that they are signing agreements with companies and there is no reason why we should not do the same.
The Government will be culpable if, having made the mistakes which they have made in the last two years because of their dogmatic policies, they do not deal properly with this new prospect for Britain. I hope that hon. Gentlemen opposite who have taken this matter

rather lightly will appreciate how deeply we feel about it in Scotland. I hope that the Government will try to appreciate the reactions of people in Scotland to their appointments.
The Secretary of State carped about the time that we took on the Harbours Bill. Does he realise that the interval between his writing to me on 25th May—in reply to which I tried to be helpful—and the Second Reading of the Bill was longer than the time it took the Bill to get a Second Reading and be passed through the House?

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Mr. Bruce-Gardyne rose—

Mr. Ross: I am sorry, but I want to conclude my speech shortly.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Earlier today the right hon. Gentleman gave the House a solemn assurance that he would deal with the Labour Party's document—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a question of order.

Mr. Ross: It is this kind of carping attitude—

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer my question?

Mr. Ross: —which makes me feel that the Scottish Office is merely floundering on the fringes instead of giving us the quality of leadership that is needed to deal with our problems, and I hope that the House will support our Motion.

9.37 p.m.

The Minister for Industry (Mr. Tom Boardman): Like the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), I am sorry that we have not had more time for this debate, if for no other reason than that it would have given the right hon. Gentleman the opportunity to deal with the matter put to him by my hon. Friend the Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne).
I am sorry, too, that the theme of so many speeches from the benches opposite has been a lack of confidence in the ability of Scotland to compete with the rest of the United Kingdom. I am proud to say that I am 50 per cent. Scottish, and I cannot condone that attitude. I support the clarion call of my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) who, in my view.


is more representative of the feelings of the people of Scotland.
I understand the concern of hon. Gentlemen opposite about the unemployment figures, but the Opposition have no monopoly of the concern over this matter. I make no criticism of hon. Gentlemen for raising these issues, but in doing so they have in large measure been condemning themselves for their ineptitude whilst in Government. Few jobs—certainly in manufacturing industries—can be created overnight. They require years of preparatory planning, anticipating the changing pattern of employment and getting the right infrastructure, and my hon. Friends the Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour) and Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Wolrige-Gordon) were right to point that out.
Steel, which figure so largely in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, is a good area to illustrate the contract between this Administration and the previous one in tackling such problems. It should have been obvious to the Labour Government that new technology and processes in this industry would demand massive investment and that there would be a streamlining of the numbers of those employed. Yet what did they do about that? They left the industry in a state of suspended animation for years while they prepared to nationalise it. As a result, they inhibited investment. When they carried out the act of nationalisation, the resulting massive rationalisation that followed prevented major investment decisions being made.
As a consequence, the levels of investment in steel during the last three years of the Labour Government were only about one-third of the level that has been made or authorised for the comparable period from 1970–71. In 1969–70 the investment made by the British Steel Corporation was £80 million, and in the current financial year the investment will be £265 million.
Applying those figures to Scotland, over the four years from 1970–71 to 1973–74 the British Steel Corporation's investment in Scotland is likely to be more than three times the annual rate over the years from vesting date to March, 1970. Scotland has had its full share of the total investment commen-

surate with its crude steel production, and this will be maintained over the years immediately ahead. Yet the terms of the Opposition Motion seem to seek to condemn the Government for failure to ensure
a modernised and expanding Scottish steel industry.
The allocation of resources to an industry is not an unfair measure of the importance that we on the Government side of the House attach to modernising and expanding it and providing the best opportunities to employ the skills and facilities which the Motion describes as being "uniquely available in Scotland". I contrast the Opposition's words today with the smallness of the resources that were deployed by them to support the steel industry when they were in office, and this exposes the sham. They had achieved their political aim of nationalisation. They accepted that this also meant nationalisation. Indeed, they justified their action on these grounds. Yet they were able neither to provide the necessary capital investment to be made nor to prepare for the inevitable consequences on employment that would follow.
I shall not go through the list of all that is being done now prior to the major strategic decision that will come forward from the British Steel Corporation later this year. But I remind the House of the proposal to build the £26 million terminal to supply iron ore to BSC plants in Scotland, and of the vast investment being made at Ravenscraig, the first phase of which is already proceeding and has cost £28 million, and the second phase, costing £32 million, which has been finally approved today by the BSC with my full agreement. This is within the £265 million for 1972–73. This is in addition to the £9 million which is being spent at Clydeside for electric are steel tube production.
It is intended to keep a viable steel industry in Scotland to meet the major needs of its national geographical market, including highly specialised steel for the North Sea oil developments and for export, especially for trans-Atlantic markets.

Mr. Millan: What about Hunterston?

Mr. Boardman: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will be patient.
The British Steel Corporation has given assurances that the steel making and finishing capacity in Scotland will be kept in balance, though Ravenscraig will also have the capacity to feed other strip mill plants with coil. The British Steel Corporation has announced that there is no provision in its planning for any regular importation of ingots or slabs to Scotland on any scale.
The right hon. Member for Kilmarnock and his hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) asked whether we would let the British Steel Corporation make 36 million tons of steel. The right hon. Gentleman referred to letting them make 33 million tons by 1980. But they should know that this is not the question. The question is whether the corporation can sell that quantity of steel. If it cannot, the green field site might lead only to overcapacity, to closure of many plants elsewhere and to serious redundancies. I ask the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Gentleman to direct their minds to the right question and not to ask whether the Government are prepared to let the corporation make the steel.

Mr. Millan: Will the hon. Gentleman answer the specific question I put? Is it or is it not a fact, as Lord Melchett said yesterday, that unless capacity is increased to at least 33 million tons by 1980 there will be no green field site anywhere either at Hunterston or anywhere else? If it is so, is it not a fact that by keeping capacity down to 28 million tons, as the Government obviously intend to do, Hunterston is out?

Mr. Boardman: The hon. Gentleman is adding to his ignorance. It is not a case of keeping the capacity down. Steel is not a commodity that the Government consume. I do not think that the Opposition consume it either. It is not a question of letting the corporation produce it. It is a question of the corporation making an assessment of the amount of steel it can sell and then adjusting its capacity. The right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Gentleman know that the strategic evaluation is at a well-advanced stage and it will be coming to the Government so that a decision can be made upon it, and it will be coming before the House later in the year.

Mr. Ross: If the corporation comes forward with a plan for 33 million tons to 36 million tons, will the Government accept it?

Mr. Boardman: The right hon. Gentleman must not ask me to speculate on what may happen if certain things eventuate. The Government have the responsibility for the assessment of the corporation's overall investment plan. The right hon. Gentleman will not expect me to anticipate decisions or to commit myself about the way in which the duty will be discharged by my right hon. Friend.
To put the loss of job opportunities in Scotland in perspective, it is worth noting that in the period since nationalisation the job opportunities lost in Scotland have been the lowest in any region in the country. The hon. Member for Craigton referred, as indeed did the right hon. Gentleman, to what they call the redundancies, which they again put at the top figure of 7,500 which has been forecast. Redundancies and loss of job opportunities are not the same thing, as the right hon. Gentleman knows. It should be realised, too, that the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Gentleman were talking about a five-year cycle. It should be remembered that there are plans coming forward about which I have been talking and which will follow from the further investment at Ravenscraig and the like. There are also such plans as may come from any further strategic study.
Hon. Members may consider that 19,000 jobs in a prosperous, modern and efficient industry are more secure and better for the health of the Scottish economy than 26,500 jobs in out-dated plants unable to compete in world markets. Steel, like oil, is a world commodity, and our standards must be measured by world standards, otherwise we are unable to compete and the whole of our industry which uses steel will suffer a penalty that can destroy it.
I recognise that modern methods make it more difficult to replace jobs in manufacturing industry with jobs in similar industries. The hon. Member for Craigton, when he was criticising our regional policy, made the remarkable assertion that too much regional assistance was directed to the manufacturing industries


—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman must read the report of what he said. That was a strange remark coming from the spokesman of a party whose Government imposed selective employment tax and who consistently showed bias against the service industries. The clear message in what the hon. Gentleman said was that not enough was being done for the service industries. I remind the House that we have already abolished half the SET, the rest is to be abolished, and free depreciation on plant and machinery for service industries may be considered for selective assistance when the Industry Bill is on the Statute Book.
I turn—all too briefly, I fear—to the question of North Sea oil. The hon. Member for Craigton asked why there was no White Paper. I am not convinced that a White Paper is necessarily appropriate. However, I think that the House is entitled to a better presentation of the information available than has so far been given, and I am considering how this can more effectively, more clearly, and, I hope, more attractively, be presented. It is a matter of considerable interest both in the House and outside, and I think it right that that should be done.
The criticism has been made that the oil companies have been allowed to get away with too much, and greater Government participation was called for. Also, it has been argued that exploitation has been left to the oil companies, and that it should be directed by the Government. I hope that I have correctly summarised the criticisms presented by the hon. Member for Craigton, which were repeated in several forms by his hon. Friends.
Such criticisms are not well founded. It must be recognised—it has been recognised both by this Government and by the Labour Government in their licensing rounds—that the objective was to achieve a rapid exploration and development, to establish what was there, to enable the industry to equip itself and, if oil were found, to achieve the maximum benefit to our balance of payments at the earliest possible moment.
This process has been successful. The first commercial oil finds in the United Kingdom shelf were in only 1970. I hope

that the hon Member for Western Isles (Mr. Donald Stewart) will forgive me for referring to the United Kingdom shelf and not to the Scottish shelf. I am sure that he would not wish to refer to some of the gas fields as being in the English shelf or the Celtic shelf.
This is a high risk industry. There is high risk in going out and drilling. So far, investment in North Sea oil by the oil companies has been £300 million, and it is estimated that by the end of the decade a further £1,500 million to £2,000 million will have to be spent. As my right hon. Friend said, each well costs about £1 million to drill. Some hon. Members said that only one well in 20 strikes oil in commercial quantities. In fact, for the record, the proportion should be noted as one in 27.
It is possible to assess the size of the risk taken, therefore, but, after the first commercial finds in 1970, the Government tried as an experiment a system of auction, and out of the 421 blocks which were available and going out for allocation 15 were selected for auction. They fetched prices between, at the one extreme, £21 million, and, at the other. £3,000.
I do not wish—time would not allow it anyway—to go into the merits of one course or the other, or to come to a firm conclusion whether either is necessarily the best to adopt for the future. We should keep an open mind as to the methods to be used in the future.
The problem with an auction is that it entails an inability to ensure that British-owned companies necessarily have a fair share. I emphasise that under the present system, over 40 per cent. of the total area is owned by British-owned companies. The public sector, directly or indirectly, has 20 per cent. This is a significant stake, and I imagine that the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) will have that in mind when he makes comparisons with what is done elsewhere. Moreover, under the present discretionary allocation system, it is possible to negotiate a satisfactory working programme, and this cannot be done at an auction.
The next criticism of the hon. Member for Craigton was of the method of exploitation, saying that too much was left to the oil companies and not enough


to the Government. The discretionary allocation system enables work programmes to be gone through in some detail—

Mr. Dick Douglas: rose—

Mr. Boardman: The third point is that one of the criteria used in deciding the allocation of discretionary licences is to take account of the applicant's actual or potential contribution to the United Kingdom economy. This is an important factor which must not be overlooked. Comparisons with other countries are not appropriate. I am sure the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock will have looked at the matter in a wider sense.

Mr. Douglas: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Boardman: No. I remind the House that under the system which has been used, half of each block has to be surrendered after six years. I remind the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock that our position is very different from that of Norway. We have a real demand for oil, we also have many oil companies and many world interests in oil exploration and exploitation.
I should like to have dealt with the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour) in a constructive speech. My hon. Friend referred to getting energy supplies more cheaply, but that is a matter which I cannot condense in the few moments which are left—[Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Wolrige-Gordon) rightly pointed out the benefits accruing to the Aberdeen area from the oil industry. It is right that 7,500 jobs have resulted from the present projects and that there are many to add to that figure. The BP pipeline will multiply the number of jobs which will become available. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, East spoke about the moving of various headquarters out of London. BEA helicopters headquarters has moved to Aberdeen, which is a start. My right hon. Friend has written to the chairmen of the various nationalised industries on that point.
References were made by the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock to Govan Shipbuilders and to the Expenditure Committee report. The great contrast can be made that while the Labour Government tinkered with the problem, we have examined the whole question. Adequate and sufficient help must be given to ensure that we achieve our objectives.
It would be wrong for me to suggest that we have found the solution to all the problems of the region; they are problems which have concerned successive Governments. The problem which we have to tackle is one which was increased by a combination of the savage deflationary measures introduced by the previous Government, the deterrents that they imposed on service industries, the Labour Government's failure to secure a high level of investment in modernising industries such as steel and shipbuilding, and their complete failure to prepare for the new employment which would be needed under the changing conditions which they should have anticipated. We are tackling these problems by new means and with new determination, with large resources and with competence. We intend to succeed.

Question put, That the Amendment be made:

The House proceeded to a Division—

Mr. George Lawson(seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. At least two Opposition Members were not counted in the Division. Before the order "Lock the doors" had been given, and before the doors had been closed, we were informed that our vote would not be counted. There was no proper sweeping-up, and, therefore, we contend that the counting of Opposition Members was inaccurate, that the result is not accurate and that the Division should be taken again.

Mr. Speaker: In these circumstances the Chair has no option but to direct the Division to be taken again.

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 291, Noes 264.

Division No. 328.]
AYES
[10.15 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Fidler, Michael
Longden, Sir Gilbert


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Loveridge, John


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Luce, R. N.


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
McAdden, Sir Stephen


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Fookes, Miss Janet
MacArthur, Ian


Astor, John
Fortescue, Tim
McCrindle, R. A.


Atkins, Humphrey
Fowler, Norman
McLaren, Martin


Awdry, Daniel
Fox, Marcus
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Fraser,Rt.Hn.Hugh(St'fford &amp; Stone)
McNair-Wilson, Michael


Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord
Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Gardner, Edward
Maddan, Martin


Batsford, Brian
Gibson-Watt, David
Madel, David


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife. E.)
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest


Bell, Ronald
Glyn, Dr. Alan
Marten, Neil


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Mather, Carol


Benyon, W.
Goodhew, Victor
Maude, Angus


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Gorst, John
Mawby, Ray


Biffen, John
Gower, Raymond
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Biggs-Davison, John
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Blaker, Peter
Gray, Hamish
Mills, Peter (Torrington)


Boardman. Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Green, Alan
Miscampbell, Norman


Body, Richard
Grieve, Percy
Mitchell, Lt.-Col.C. (Aberdeenshire.W)


Boscawen, Robert
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Bossom, Sir Clive
Grylls, Michael
Moate, Roger


Bowden, Andrew
Gummer, J. Selwyn
Money, Ernle


Braine, Sir Bernard
Gurden, Harold
Monks, Mrs. Connie


Bray, Ronald
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Monro, Hector


Brewis, John
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Montgomery, Fergus


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
More, Jasper


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hannam, John (Exeter)
Morrison, Charles


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Mudd, David


Bryan, Sir Paul
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Murton, Oscar


Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus,N&amp;M)
Haselhurst, Alan
Neave, Airey


Buck, Antony
Hastings, Stephen
Nicholls, Sir Harmar


Bullus, Sir Eric
Havers, Michael
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


Burden, F. A.
Hawkins, Paul
Normanton, Tom


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Hayhoe, Barney
Nott, John


Campbell, Rt.Hn.G.(Moray&amp;Nairn)
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Onslow, Cranley


Carlisle, Mark
Heseltine, Michael
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Hicks, Robert
Osborn, John


Channon, Paul
Higgins, Terence L.
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)


Chapman, Sydney
Hiley, Joseph
Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Chichester-Clark, R.
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Parkinson, Cecil


Churchill, W. S.
Holland, Philip
Peel, John


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Hordern, Peter
Percival, Ian


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Hornby, Richard
Peyton, Rt. Hn. John


Cockeram, Eric
Hornsby-Smith.Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Cooke, Robert
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Pink, R. Bonner


Cooper, A. E.
Hunt, John
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Cordle, John
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Corfield, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick
Iremonger, T. L.
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.


Cormack, Patrick
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis


Costain, A. P.
James, David
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Critchley, Julian
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Raison, Timothy


Crouch, David
Jessel, Toby
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Crowder, F. P.
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Dalkeith, Earl of
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Redmond, Robert


Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)
Jopling, Michael
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Rees, Peter (Dover)


d'Aivgdor-Goldsmid,Maj.-Gen.James
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Dean, Paul
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Kershaw, Anthony
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Kimball, Marcus
Ridsdale, Julian


Dixon, Piers
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)


Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
Kinsey, J. R.
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Drayson, G. B.
Kirk, Peter
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Kitson, Timothy
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Dykes, Hugh
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Rost, Peter


Eden, Sir John
Knox, David
Royle, Anthony


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Lambton, Lord
Russell, Sir Ronald


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Lamont, Norman
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Elliot, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Lane, David
Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.


Emery, Peter
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Scott, Nicholas


Eyre, Reginald
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Scott-Hopkins, James


Farr, John
Le Marchant, Spencer
Sharples, Sir Richard


Fell, Anthony
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Shelton, William (Clapham)







Simeons, Charles
Tebbit, Norman
Ward, Dame Irene


Sinclair, Sir George
Temple, John M.
Warren, Kenneth


Skeet, T. H. H.
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Soref, Harold
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Speed, Keith
Tilney, John
Wiggin, Jerry


Spence, John
Trafford, Dr. Anthony
Wilkinson, John


Sproat, Iain
Trew, Peter
Winterton, Nicholas


Stainton, Keith
Tugendhat, Christopher
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Stanbrook, Ivor
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)
van Straubenzee, W. R.
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard
Woodnutt, Mark


Stuttaford, Dr. Tom
Vickers, Dame Joan
Worsley, Marcus


Sutcliffe, John
Waddington, David
Younger, Hn. George


Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley
Walder, David (Clitheroe)



Tapsell, Peter
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek
Mr. Bernard Weatherill and Mr. Walter Glegg.


Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)
Wall, Patrick



Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Walters, Dennis



NOES


Abse, Leo
Dormand, J. D.
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)


Albu, Austen
Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.)


Allen, Scholefield
Driberg, Tom
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Dunnett, Jack
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)


Armstrong, Ernest
Eadie, Alex
Judd, Frank


Ashley, Jack
Edelman, Maurice
Kaufman, Gerald


Ashton, Joe
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Kelley, Richard


Atkinson, Norman
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Kerr, Russell


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Ellis, Tom
Kinnock, Neil


Barnes, Michael
English, Michael
Lambie, David


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Evans, Fred
Lamond, James


Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)
Ewing, Harry
Latham, Arthur


Baxter, William
Faulds, Andrew
Lawson, George


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Leadbitter, Ted


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Fletcher. Raymond (Ilkeston)
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Bidwell, Sydney
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Leonard, Dick


Bishop, E. S.
Foley, Maurice
Lestor, Miss Joan


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Foot, Michael
Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Ford, Ben
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Forrester, John
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Lipton, Marcus


Bradley, Tom
Freeson, Reginald
Lomas, Kenneth


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Galpern, Sir Myer
Loughlin, Charles


Brown, Robert C. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne, W.)
Garrett, W. E.
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Gilbert, Dr. John
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson


Buchan, Norman
Golding, John
McBride, Neil


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
McElhone, Frank


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Gourlay, Harry
McGuire, Michael


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Mackenzie, Gregor


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Mackie, John


Cant, R. B.
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Mackintosh, John P.


Carmichael, Neil
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Maclennan, Robert


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eecles)
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
McNamara, J. Kevin


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Hamling, William
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)


Cocks, Michael (Bristol. S.)
Hardy, Peter
Marks, Kenneth


Cohen, Stanley
Harper, Joseph
Marquand, David


Coleman, Donald
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Marsden, F.


Concannon, J. D.
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Marshall, Dr. Edmund


Conlan, Bernard
Heffer, Eric S.
Mayhew, Christopher


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Hilton, W. S.
Meacher, Michael


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Horam, John
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert


Crawshaw, Richard
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Mendelson, John


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Huckfield, Leslie
Mikardo, Ian


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Millan, Bruce


Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Milne, Edward


Dalyell, Tam
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)


Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Hunter, Adam
Molloy, William


Davidson, Arthur
Irvine,Rt.Hn.SirArthur(Edge Hill)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Janner, Groville
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Jeger, Mrs. Lena
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)


Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Deakins, Eric
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Murray, Ronald King


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
John, Brynmor
Oakes, Gordon


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Ogden, Eric


Dempsey, James
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
O'Halloran, Michael


Doig, Peter
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Oram, Bert







Orbach, Maurice
Rose, Paul B.
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)


Orme, Stanley
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)
Tinn, James


Oswald, Thomas
Rowlands, Ted
Tomney, Frank


Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)
Sandelson, Neville
Torney, Tom


Paget, R. T.
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)
Urwin, T. W.


Palmer, Arthur
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Varley, Eric G.


Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Short,Rt.Hn.Edward( N'ctle-u-Tyne)
Wainwright, Edwin


Parker, John (Dagenham)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Walden, Brian (B'mham, All Saints)


Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Pavitt, Laurie
Sillars, James
Wallace, George


Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Silverman, Julius
Watkins, David


Pendry, Tom
Skinner, Dennis
Weitzman, David


Pentland, Norman
Small, William
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Perry, Ernest G.
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.
Spriggs, Leslie
Whitehead, Phillip


Prescott, John
Stallard, A. W.
Whitlock, William


Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Steel, David
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Probert, Arthur
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Reed, D. (Sedgefield)
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, E.)
Stoddart, David (Swindon)
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Richard, Ivor
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Strang, Gavin
Woof, Robert


Roberts,Rt.Hn.Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.



Robertson, John (Paisley)
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Roderick,Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n&amp;R'dnor)
Taverne, Dick
Mr. James A. Dunn and Mr. James Hamilton.


Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)
Thomas,Rt.Hn.George (Cardiff.W.)



Roper, John
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Main Question, as amended, put:—

The House divided: Ayes 290, Noes 255.

Division No. 329.]
AYES
[10.27 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Cooper, A. E.
Gray, Hamish


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Cordle, John
Green, Alan


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Corfield, Rt. Hn Sir Frederick
Grieve, Percy


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Cormack, Patrick
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Costain, A. P.
Grylls, Michael


Astor, John
Critchley, Julian
Gummer, J. Selwyn


Atkins, Humphrey
Crouch, David
Gurden, Harold


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Crowder, F. P.
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)


Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord
Dalkeith, Earl of
Hall, John (Wycombe)


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.


Batsford, Brian
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid.Maj.-Gen. James
Hannam, John (Exeter)


Bell, Ronald
Dean, Paul
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)


Benyon, W.
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Haselhurst, Alan


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Dixon, Piers
Hastings, Stephen


Biffen, John
Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Havers, Michael


Biggs-Davison, John
Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn Sir Alec
Hawkins, Paul


Blaker, Peter
Drayson, G. B.
Hayhoe, Barney


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward


Body, Richard
Dykes, Hugh
Heseltine, Michael


Boscawen, Robert
Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Hicks, Robert


Bossom, Sir Clive
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Higgins, Terence L.


Bowden, Andrew
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Hiley, Joseph


Braine, Sir Bernard
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)


Bray, Ronald
Emery, Peter
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)


Brewis, John
Eyre, Reginald
Holland, Philip


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Farr, John
Hordern, Peter


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Fell, Anthony
Hornby, Richard


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Fidler, Michael
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)


Bryan, Sir Paul
Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Hunt, John


Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus,N&amp;M)
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Hutchison, Michael Clark


Buck, Antony
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Iremonger, T. L.


Bullus, Sir Eric
Fookes, Miss Janet
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)


Burden, F. A.
Fortescue. Tim
James, David


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Fowler, Norman
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)


Campbell, Rt.Hn.G. (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Fox, Marcus
Jessel, Toby


Carlisle, Mark
Fraser,Rt.Hn.Hugh(St'fford &amp; Stone)
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)


Channon, Paul
Gardner, Edward
Jopling, Michael


Chapman, Sydney
Gibson-Watt, David
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Chichester-Clark, R.
Glyn, Dr. Alan
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine


Churchill, W. S.
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Kershaw, Anthony


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Goodhew, Victor
Kimball, Marcus


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Gorst, John
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)


Cockeram, Eric
Gower, Raymond
King, Tom (Bridgwater)


Cooke, Robert
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)





Kinsey, J. R.
Normanton, Tom
Spence, John


Kirk, Peter
Nott, John
Sproat, Iain


Kitson, Timothy
Onslow, Cranley
Stainton, Keith


Knight, Mrs. Jill
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Stanbrook, Ivor


Knox, David
Osborn, John
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)


Lambton, Lord
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Lamont, Norman
Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Lane, David
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Sutcliffe, John


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Parkinson, Cecil
Tapsell, Peter


Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Peel, John
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Le Marchant, Spencer
Percival, Ian
Taylor.Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Peyton, Rt. Hn. John
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Tebbit, Norman


Longden, Sir Gilbert
Pink, R. Bonner
Temple, John M.


Loveridge, John
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


Luce, R. N.
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


McAdden, Sir Stephen
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


MacArthur, Ian
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Tilney, John


McCrindle, R. A.
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


McLaren, Martin
Raison, Timothy
Trew, Peter


Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Tugendhat, Christopher


McNair-Wilson, Michael
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin


McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Redmond, Robert
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Maddan, Martin
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Madel, David
Rees, Peter (Dover)
Vickers, Dame Joan


Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Waddington, David


Marten, Neil
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Mather, Carol
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Maude, Angus
Ridsdale, Julian
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Mawby, Ray
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey
Wall, Patrick


Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)
Walters, Dennis


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Ward, Dame Irene


Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Warren, Kenneth


Miscampbell, Norman
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Mitchell,Lt.-Col.C.(Aberdeenshire,W)
Rost, Peter
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Royle, Anthony
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Moate, Roger
Russell, Sir Ronald
Wiggin, Jerry


Money, Ernle
St. John-Stevas, Norman
Wilkinson, John


Monks, Mrs. Connie
Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.
Winterton, Nicholas


Monro, Hector
Scott, Nicholas
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Montgomery, Fergus
Scott-Hopkins, James
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


More, Jasper
Sharples, Sir Richard
Woodnutt, Mark


Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)
Worsley, Marcus


Morrison, Charles
Shelton, William (Clapham)
Younger, Hn. George


Mudd, David
Simeons, Charles



Murton, Oscar
Sinclair, Sir George
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Neave, Airey
Skeet, T. H. H.
Mr. Bernard Weatherill and Mr. Walter Clegg.


Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)



Noble. Rt. Hn. Michael
Soref, Harold




Speed. Keith



NOES


Albu, Austen
Carmichael, Neil
Douglas-Mann, Bruce


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Driberg, Tom


Alien, Scholefield
Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Dunnett, Jack


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Eadie, Alex


Armstrong, Ernest
Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Edelman, Maurice


Ashley, Jack
Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)


Atkinson, Norman
Cohen, Stanley
Edwards, William (Merioneth)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Coleman, Donald
Ellis, Tom


Barnes, Michael
Concannon, J. D.
English, Michael


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Conlan, Bernard
Evans, Fred


Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)
Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Ewing, Harry


Baxter, William
Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Faulds, Andrew


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Crawshaw, Richard
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)


Bidwell, Sydney
Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)


Bishop, E. S.
Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Foley, Maurice


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)
Foot, Michael


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Dalyell, Tarn
Ford, Ben


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Forrester, John


Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)
Davidson, Arthur
Fraser, John (Norwood)


Bradley, Tom
Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Freeson, Reginald


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Garrett, W. E.


Brown, Robert C. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne, W.)
Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Gilbert, Dr. John


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Deakins, Eric
Golding, John


Buchan, Norman
de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Gourlay, Harry


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Dempsey, James
Grant, George (Morpeth)


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Doig, Peter
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Dormand, J. D.
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)


Cant, R. B.
Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)







Grimond, Rt. Hn. J
McElhone, Frank
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
McGuire, Michael
Roderick,Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n&amp;R'dnor)


Hamling, William
Mackenzie, Gregor
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)


Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Mackie, John
Roper, John


Hardy, Peter
Mackintosh, John P.
Rose, Paul B.


Harper, Joseph
Maclennan, Robert
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Rowlands, Ted


Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
McNamara, J. Kevin
Sandelson, Neville


Heffer, Eric S.
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


Horam, John
Mallalieu, J. p. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Marks, Kenneth
Short,Rt.Hn.Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Huckfield, Leslie
Marquand, David
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Marsden, F.
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Marshall, Dr. Edmund
Sillars, James


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Mayhew, Christopher
Silverman, Julius


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Meacher, Michael
Skinner, Dennis


Hunter, Adam
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Small, William


Irvine,Rt.Hn.SirArthur(Edge Hill)
Mendelson, John
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


Janner, Greville
Mikardo, Ian
Spriggs, Leslie


Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Millan, Bruce
Stallard, A. W.


Jeger, Mrs. Lena
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Steel, David


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Milne, Edward
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)


Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Molloy, William
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)


John, Brynmor
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Strang, Gavin


Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Murray, Ronald King
Thomas,Rt.Hn.George (Cardiff,W.)


Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.)
Oakes, Gordon
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Ogden, Eric
Thomson, Rt. Hn.G. (Dundee, E.)


Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
O'Halloran, Michael
Tinn, James


Judd, Frank
Oram, Bert
Tomney, Frank


Kaufman, Gerald
Orbach, Maurice
Torney, Tom


Kelley, Richard
Orme, Stanley
Urwin, T. W.


Kerr, Russell
Oswald, Thomas
Varley, Eric G.


Kinnock, Neil
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)
Wainwright, Edwin


Lambie, David
Paget, R. T.
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)


Lamond, James
Palmer, Arthur
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Latham, Arthur
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Wallace, George


Lawson, George
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Watkins, David


Leadbitter, Ted
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)
Weitzman, David


Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Pavitt, Laurie
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Leonard, Dick
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
White, James (Glasgow. Pollok)


Lestor, Miss Joan
Pendry, Tom
Whitehead, Phillip


Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold
Pentland, Norman
Whitlock, William


Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Perry, Ernest G.
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Lipton, Marcus
Prescott, John
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Lomas, Kenneth
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Loughlin, Charles
Probert, Arthur
Woof, Robert


Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)



Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Richard, Ivor
Mr. James A. Dunn and Mr. James Hamilton.


McBride, Neil
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)




Roberts, Rt.Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House welcomes the huge public works programme authorised by Her Majesty's Government to stimulate employment in Scotland; endorses the decision to increase investment incentives to encourage new industry and to expand existing industry, the commitment to the British Steel Corporation scheme

for a £26 million ore terminal at Hunterston, the British Steel Corporation's intention to maintain a strong and viable steel industry in Scotland and the provision of £35 million to launch Govan Shipbuilders Limited; and recognises Her Majesty's Government's determination to set Scotland on course for a new period of industrial expansion including additional expenditure on harbours, roads and other infrastructure related to the opportunities opened up by the North Sea oil discoveries.

HUNTINGDON-GODMANCHESTER BYPASS (LAND)

10.38 p.m.

Sir David Renton: I beg to move,
That the Royston-Alconbury Trunk Road (Huntingdon and God Manchester By-Pass) Compulsory Purchase Order (No. CE 4), dated 5th June 1972, a copy of which was laid before this House on 22nd June, be annulled.
This compulsory purchase order results from a decision that the Huntingdon and Godmanchester bypass should be on a north-south route running between Huntingdon and Godmanchester, which are within the same borough, and linking the A604 from Cambridge with the Al south of Alconbury Hill rather than on an east-west route south of Godmanchester and clear of the borough and linking the A604 with the Al at what is known as Brampton Hut.
Although I disagree strongly with the decision to choose the north-south route, I am not disputing it tonight. But I am using this occasion, as I understand that as a private Member I am entitled to do, to draw attention to defects which have appeared in the decision-making process in the hope that such defects may be rectified in future in the development of our major roads programme. I have been assured by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary that by using my right to raise the matter in this way I shall not be delaying the building of our bypass at Huntingdon, which is much needed and for which I have been pressing Ministers by correspondence and Questions in this House for no fewer than 17 years.
The defects which have appeared can be summarised in this way. First, lack of clear, detailed and early information to the public, including those whose land is to be taken, about the proposed development. Secondly, lack of liaison between the public authorities concerned—in this case the Eastern Road Construction Unit, the East Anglian Regional Hospital Board and the local authorities. Thirdly, lack of adequate evidence at the public inquiry, thus placing the Inspector who held it—I think he made the best of a very difficult job—as well as the objectors at a disadvantage.
Although this matter has such a long history, I will endeavour briefly to illustrate my case by referring only to the major matters which, in my opinion, constitute defects which have emerged leaving various less important matters for study by the Department and, I hope, the Council on Tribunals in the light of the two courteous and closely reasoned but critical reports made by the Inspector. There is, however, one major matter to which I shall not refer, because it is now being considered by "the Ombudsman", the Parliamentary Commissioner, at my request, which was raised by an objector whose land is affected.
In 1964 the north-south line was chosen by the local authorities as the best line for an ordinary relief bypass with mainly local implications—a bypass which would have one carriageway in each direction and would be built at ground levels. In the circumstances, I and many others reluctantly supported it on the understanding that it was of that character.
I am making no party point in this matter, nor any complaint against any specific Minister of either Government. Indeed, I received enormous help in this matter from the former Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, my hon. Friend the Member for Tavistock (Mr. Michael Heseltine), who is now the Minister for Aerospace. But when the draft Order was made in January, 1970, it was not for many months made clear that it was to be quite different from the proposals originally put forward by the local authorities. It was to become an elevated dual carriageway with two lanes in each direction, to be built at motorway standards, at high levels, with embankments over three commons and with high bridges over the road bridge which crosses the railway at Huntingdon station and over the river Great Ouse—a very different proposition indeed. Although it followed the same line, it was different in character from that which had been approved by the local authorities six years before.
The objectors, when the draft order was laid in January, 1970, had great difficulty in finding out about the details of the new scheme because the plans deposited merely showed the line of the road, and the road construction unit for


some time maintained that details could not be given until various surveys had been completed.
The plan, which I have described as being envisaged by the draft order, involved building an embankment, believe it or not, close to Huntingdon Hospital, with all the disturbance during two years of construction and forever after that that would cause to the hospital, especially as the embankment when built would be at about the level of the first floor of the hospital where most of the wards are.
But it was not until I alerted the regional hospital board—and the road construction unit also did so—in May, 1971, that the board was aware that the bypass would come close to the hospital, with all the disturbance during and after construction. Eventually, when the hospital board had been alerted it entered an objection, and indeed the secretary of the board appeared on behalf of the board at the inquiry in order to pursue that objection. But that failure to notify the hospital board showed, I fear, a deplorable lack of liaison between public authorities.
When, early last summer, the nature of the proposed motorway-bypass at last became apparent, I asked the county and borough councils—that is to say, the Huntingdon and Peterborough County Council and the Huntingdon and God-manchester Borough Council—to reconsider the matter, and they kindly did so. But after much discussion they decided by majorities to support the proposed original line rather than an east-west alternative which I had suggested, and which I still believe most of my constituents who really applied their minds to the matter would have preferred.
Many councillors, before and during the discussions which took place, were clearly not aware of the essential facts of the matter or of the change of plan. Indeed, some councillors said, as their reason for still approving the north-south route, "We have had the inquiry, so let us get on with completing the bypass", but in fact no inquiry had ever been held. I think it is rather sad that nobody present at that meeting of the county council, where this view was expressed by several members, corrected that mis-

taken impression, although I understand that representatives of the road construction unit were present.
The inquiry was first held from 30th November until 3rd December 1971. After those three days of hearing the inspector was not satisfied with the evidence produced in support of the proposed line, and he adjourned the inquiry for "a comprehensive reappraisal" by the road construction unit "both from the traffic and the environmental standpoint".
At paragraph 9.10 the inspector said:
In short, the Department's decision as to the line of the by-pass may have been, and probably was, entirely right at the time it was taken in 1964 in relation to the local and national needs then ruling. There are strong pointers to the possibility that the Department might come up with an entirely different solution to the local and national problem if it were to examine the matter afresh in the circumstances as they exist today and as they are likely to develop in the next 10 or 20 years. I suggest it is not too late for a fresh study of this kind to be put in hand; and that this should be done before work is started on the construction of the by-pass on the lines indicated in the made Orders.
So the inspector adjourned the inquiry.
Some further somewhat meagre information was then produced about traffic flows. But there was no fresh study of the kind which obviously the inspector was entitled to ask for. At the adjourned hearing in March, 1972, he was still unable to accept an important part of the evidence of the road construction unit.
In his final report, with its recommendation, the inspector expressed the hope that before a decision was made by the Secretary of State, further thought should be given to influences on future traffic patterns. But this was not done, as is shown by the Answer to a Question of mine on 5th July, which indicated that the decision of the Secretary of State took into account all the evidence given at the inquiry and the views expressed by the inspector. But there was no suggestion of further thought having been given to the important question of future traffic patterns.
In the final report the inspector said in short:
Those whose environment is adversely affected by developments proposed by Government Departments are entitled to the fullest explanations and assurances as to the effect of


and the necessity for the developments in pursuance of declared Government policies.
The whole tenor of both the inspector's reports was to the effect that those explanations and assurances had not been given.
As to declared Government policies, here too there was something lacking. The choice between the north-south and the east-west route turned largely upon the question whether the A604 would become a major east-west highway. We know that it is to have dual carriageways anyway from Cambridge to God Manchester, but the question of the extension of dual carriageways westward to make a link with the A1 and to carry on past Brampton Hut to Thrapston is still unresolved, although it is of vital importance. In a Question on 14th June I asked my hon. Friend whether there was any possibility of that happening. But my hon. Friend, perhaps wisely—I do not know—declined to give an assurance either way.
If we are not careful—that is, if the A604 were to be extended westward as a dual carriageway, which would be a very sensible action—we shall end up with both an east-west route and a north-south route and Huntingdon will have two bypasses. Already, although it is not quite like Birmingham, we are beginning to have a feeling of a Spaghetti-like pattern for our road system at Huntingdon.
It was important for the inspector to know whether the A604 or the A45, just to its south, or both of those roads would become a major east-west highway, but the inspector was not told at the inquiry which of those things would happen.
Those are some of the defects which have appeared. They are plain enough. How can they be rectified? I trust that my hon. Friend will join me in asking the Council on Tribunals to consider them and to consider both the inspector's reports in this case.
I hope that my hon. Friend, whose appointment to his important office was so greatly welcomed, having seen enough of what is going on, will decide that the time has come to review the procedures. I do not think that legislation is necessary. The point is to ensure that those who have the duty to carry out the statutory responsibilities do so in a way which gives satisfaction to all concerned, so as

to ensure a better process of information, better consultation, and less treading on people's toes. When my hon. Friend has considered the matter, he may well feel that a manual of instruction, a road developer's "bible", would meet the case.

10.57 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Keith Speed): I thank my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) for raising this subject tonight and for the moderate way in which he has presented his case, a case with which he has been particularly concerned for a long time and which he has assiduously pursued, not only with myself, but with a number of my predecessors, both in the Department of the Environment and in the Ministry of Transport.
I assure my right hon. and learned Friend at the outset that his having raised this matter tonight will in no way delay the start of this road. Although he has disagreed with this line and has pursued an alternative line, he has taken the view that his constituents and the town of Huntingdon and God Manchester and the villages to the north need some relief.
It was in June, 1967, that a draft line was published. At that time it was well advertised in the local Press. Ten objections were received. At that time all inquiries about the route were answered as far as possible. I cannot understand my right hon. and learned Friend's claim about the embankment. I accept that final and firm details were not and, indeed, could not in the light of various surveys and engineering investigations that were taking place have been given until a later date.
I am informed that a letter was sent—and indeed I have seen it—by officials of the then Ministry of Transport to my right hon. Friend's political agent in 1969, in which he was told about the probable height of the embankment opposite his house. Local residents, who were also very concerned that their property was to be affected, were also written to at about the same time and were offered a meeting with officers of the Department. But they did not wish to take advantage of that offer at that time. After some of the objections had been resolved, the then Minister of Transport confirmed the line order in December, 1969.
In August, 1970, draft proposals for side roads and junctions were published. Seventeen objections were received, most of which referred rather to the line of the bypass than to the side roads themselves. The line passes close to some exclusive properties on Mill Common and some of the residents became anxious about the adverse effect upon the amenity of their properties. Several objectors asked about the height of the embankment and were told figures as precisely as possible, though I understand that it was difficult to give final figures. This, indeed, has proved to be right. As a result of my right hon. Friend's own representations, the height of the embankment has been reduced on a significant part of the route.
After considering objections the Secretary of State on 8th October, 1971, confirmed the Side Roads Orders without modification. It was on14th July, 1971, that officers of the RCU spoke to, and answered questions from, the county highway committee. I am told that it was specifically said that there had been no public inquiry and that this point was understood. Subsequently the county council agreed by 37 votes to 19 on 27th July, 1971, that the north-south route should be the one it would support.
In October, 1971, the draft compulsory purchase order was published. It was at about this time my right hon. Friend took up the point about the line of the bypass passing close to Huntingdon Hospital and that the road would be at first floor level. Unfortunately, the building of the new Huntingdon Hospital, which has been promised for a long time, has been delayed. The hospital will eventually move to Hinchingbrooke Park and originally it was thought that the hospital would have moved by the time the road was open. However, it now looks as if the present hospital building will not be vacated for several years, though I note that the right hon. Gentleman is urging the authorities to speed up the procees.
My right hon. Friend criticised the lack of consultation, but I would point out that local hospital authorities were treated in the same way as everyone else, in that the draft line was published for objection and comment—which was considerable locally—in June, 1967. It

would have been open to them at that time, in view of the sort of publicity there was at the time, to have made their objections. There is no reason why they should not have been aware of what was going on, in the same way as other residents were aware. Perhaps it can be said in retrospect that publicity at the time was not all that could be desired, but we have moved on in recent years, a point I shall come to later.
The public inquiry began in November, 1971, and the inspector made it clear at the inquiry that he would take into account points about the line of the bypass as well as about the compulsory purchase order itself. The inspector in his report said that he was not satisfied that the case had been proved for a north-south bypass, and he was particularly concerned, on the evidence of the figures, whether the traffic was north-south or east-west. It is fair to say that when the inquiry was reopened the inspector finally said that, notwithstanding certain differences between different witnesses, he was satisfied with the final traffic flow figures which showed a preponderance of traffic travelling in a north-south direction.
I do not think the need for a bypass of Huntington and God Manchester has been disputed by anyone over a long period of time. As long ago as 1951 a route with a north-south alignment was included in the county development plan because traffic figures then indicated that this was the correct alignment. Since then there has been a whole series of traffic studies by the county, the Department's consulting engineers, private individuals and, early this year, by Huntingdon County Council and the consultants jointly, as well as recommendations from the inspector. All these have indicated the need for a north-south alignment, rather than an east-west alignment.
Further traffic studies were taken in detail on two separate days which were early closing days, but the point was to find not the volume of traffic visiting the town, but which traffic was going through the town and wished to avoid it, and which traffic was not through traffic. The studies confirmed earlier studies that about three times as much traffic wished to go north-south as east-west.
My right hon. Friend has criticised the Department and has called in aid the inspector to support his criticism that it


has not tried to anticipate traffic over the next 10 or 20 years, and has not taken into account the whole highway strategy, but has looked at this area in isolation. There may have been genuine misunderstanding here. In the inspector's second report in paragraph 2.04 it said that an officer of the RCU, Mr. Benney, had tried to deal with the point in some detail and referred to the A604.
Especial attention was paid to the volume of northbound traffic that would divert to M11 from parallel existing north-south routes and traffic generated by the Felixstowe and other docks was included.
This is very important for a reason I shall explain.
Such traffic would join the Huntingdon-God Manchester By-Pass for the north via A.604, Girton to Godmanchester.
Announcements are made after a great deal of work and investigation by the Department. The A45, which is an important element of the Midlands—East Coast docks road network, is being extensively improved even now. The A45 improvements from Cambridge to Ipswich will almost certainly be dual carriageway the whole way. Already work has commenced or is about to on the New market, Stow market, Claydon, Bury St. Edmunds and Cambridge bypasses. I recently announced the Ipswich Southern Bypass. All these bypasses and I hope the majority, if not all, of the intervening road sections will be of high-quality dual carriageway standard. It was made very clear when I was investigating the Ipswich southern bypass, one of the first road schemes on which I had to take a decision, that the growth of traffic and the growth of freight for the docks at Ipswich and Felixstowe would be considerable over the years.
That is why the A45 is so important. The route of the A45 from Cambridge to St. Neots is being studied with a view to seeing what needs to be done to improve it, although it is not a bad road at the moment. But it is not dual carriageway for most of its way. What is also being examined, as was announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, is a high-quality major trunk road from Northampton to the A1. I cannot say what part of the A1 it will eventually be decided that that road will strike, but this is an important factor for traffic from the Midlands to the East Coast ports. Therefore it follows that the

A45 will play a most important part in all this.
I have gone into detail about the A45 because I wish to give my right hon. and learned Friend firm assurances. I have studied the papers of my immediate predecessor on the Huntingdon bypass. I like he was very conscious of the need to relate this scheme to other schemes, one being the startegic route from the East Coast ports to the Midlands and elsewhere.
I do not wish to criticise anyone who gave evidence at the public inquiry and I say it with respect, but to talk about a trans-Pennine route and so on is getting into the realms of what might or might not happen. All road forecasting and traffic forecasting can only be an estimate. It might be argued that the former Ministry of Transport under the Goverments of both parties and even the present Department of the Environment have tended to be pessimisitic in their forecasts and that already the existing dual carriageways on the M1 are beginning to prove inadequate and that proposals should be made for doubling their capacity. I accept that it is an imprecise art to try to get realistic and accurate forecasts of the whole road systetm.
But certainly there is no doubt that my predecessors and I and the Department and my officers take very carefully into account—and I am sorry if this appeared to be not appreciated by the inspector—the effects not only of this but of all other such schemes which might be involved and which might have any bearing at all.
My right hon. and learned Friend mentioned having a code of practice, or a guide or something of the sort, and said he felt that that would be extremely helpful for those who had to attend public inquiries. He went so far as to say that he thought this was a matter not of legislation but of good practice. It is fair to say, and I concede this to my right hon. and learned Friend, that a number of the problems he mentioned arise because of the time scale of the proposals, and in saying that I make no criticism of the previous Administration. We have all moved a long way in the past few years towards increasing public participation in making sensible proposals.
As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Development said when we discussed the Highways Act last year, it is extremely important that we should increase, and substantially increase, publicity so that local people and bodies and organisations such as hospitals and local firms are well aware of and have a chance to question and criticise road proposals well in advance of a public inquiry or whatever it may be. The Department has now produced a couple of very helpful pamphlets, one dealing with compulsory purchase by the State of property that may be needed for road schemes and the other dealing with an individual's rights and explaining how he may be involved, how he may object to proposals, to whom he should write, the procedure for a public inquiry and so on.
We have gone to a good deal of trouble to ensure that people who will be affected will have these leaflets as a first shot, as it were, to advise them of their rights. I must stress that the leaflets have been out for only six or seven months. In addition in any major scheme, certainly of the kind that we have been discussing tonight, we hold exihibitions at which we produce models, maps, photographs and other descriptive material for the general public to see. It is now also usual to hold public meetings and certainly to invite people living nearby who may be affected by any proposals, or who believe that they might be, to come to a public meeting, not in protest—this does not replace the public inquiry—but to put questions about the facts and to get answers given as clearly and as helpfully as possible.
A great deal of work is now going on with exhibitions and public meetings. One occurred last week in another part of the country where we went to a great deal of trouble to see that officers from the Department were available to answer questions from people who might be affected.
We realise that we have to do very much better than any party or Government has yet done about telling people what is going on and I am especially concerned about the procedures of the public inquiries themselves. Perhaps a

child's guide should be provided for people attending a public inquiry. On the whole, the inspectors handle the inquiries very well and informally and there should be no reason why anybody should be worried about attending a public inquiry and giving evidence and making his views known. But technical terms and phrases are used and there is a certain procedure. So it might be helpful when considering revision of some of the leaflets to include a code to help people attending public inquiries to understand their rights and how they can make their representations known. As my right hon. and learned Friend will appreciate, they do not have to attend in person but can send their submissions by letter or in some other way.
I think I have said enough to assure my right hon. and learned Friend that we treat the subject seriously. We have made progress, and I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Development who has achieved a great deal in this. I feel that we could improve on what we have, but whether a code or manual is necessary I do not know.
One element of public inquiries must, I hope, be flexibility and there must be informality. They are not courts of law as such, and it might be that if one had a code of highway practice to help the public it would either be so general that it would defeat my right hon. and learned Friend's object or would introduce an undesirable degree of rigidity into the proceedings.
We are stepping up all sorts of publicity and are discussing methods of taking this a stage further. I have some ideas to discuss which may be fruitful. In addition we are expecting shortly the Urban Motorways Committee's report, and my right hon. Friend is looking at the compensation code and the impact of road building and acquisition of property for road construction generally.
I hope I have said enough to assure my right hon. and learned Friend that we are well aware of the problems. I appreciate that he sticks to his view that his proposal for the bypass was the right one. When I answered him in the House recently and said that I could not guarantee that no east—west bypass would ever be built this was carefully


considered and I could not give a guarantee that no road was ever to be built because things can change. But as things are, we have no doubt that the great preponderance of traffic will be north—south for the foreseeable future.
We have no doubt that something must be done to relieve the congestion in Huntingdon and Godmanchester and to the north of those towns where there are terrible traffic problems and, having looked at them most carefully, we believe that this is the best solution.
We will look carefully at the points he has made on publicity and future standards, but I hope I have said enough to assure my right hon. and learned Friend that we take the subject very seriously.
On the route we are discussing, the solution was made better in a number of significant ways by the zeal of my right hon. and learned Friend by his representations.

11.19 p.m.

Sir David Renton: In my brief reply, before I withdraw my Motion, may I say that I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the great care he has taken to consider the matters which I had put before the House.
His reply fortifies me in having raised the matter. I realise that I have been an awful nuisance to the Department in this case, but it is clear that already a good many improvements are taking place and I should like to wish my hon. Friend well in improving the procedures.
There is one question of fact on which he is in dispute with me. I attended, as a member of the public, the Road and Bridges Committee meeting and I do not remember a member of the road construction unit being present. I do not remember any question of whether there had been an inquiry previously being raised. That question was raised at the crucial meeting of the county council and was undoubtedly an important factor affecting the minds of some of the members there. They voted under a misapprehension. Of that, there seems to be no doubt.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Adjournment

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Hawkins.]

NATIONAL AIRPORTS POLICY

11.20 p.m.

Mr. John Wilkinson: I am very grateful for the opportunity to initiate this Adjournment debate and I thank Mr. Speaker for making it possible.
I want to dwell on the need for a national airports policy. The subject is of constituency interest, not least as evidenced by the motion to be submitted this autumn by the Bradford, West Conservative Association to my party's annual conference, urging the Government to formulate a national airports policy to encourage the development of regional civil air transport facilities at airports like Leeds-Bradford in view of Britain's impending entry into the European Economic Community.
There is also country-wide concern. This is clear from the determined efforts on the one hand of progressive local airport authorities like that of the East Midlands airport, which is seeking to expand facilities to an inter-continental scale, and on the other hand from the much-publicised efforts of so-called environmentalists like the various campaigners against aircraft noise, whose most notorious achievement to date has been almost to drown the plaudits for Concorde's highly successful Far East sales tour with their protests, regardless of the mammoth employment implications inherent in the project. These campaigners have also been able to bring about the political overturn of all the principles of airline economics, regional planning and nature conservation through the political decision which they induced to locate a new intercontinental airport on a remote and unspoilt stretch of coastline, of rare and exceptionally wild beauty, in the south-eastern extremity of the country at Foulness.
As one of the leading protagonists of the extension of intermediate area status to Yorkshire, I yield to no one in my keenness for an active regional policy.


Conservative Party policy always emphasises the importance of infrastructure and communications as concomitants to industrial development. To reinforce this view with regard to civil air transport, the evidence presented to the Edwards Committee by various regional bodies was unanimously of the opinion that—
improved air services are an essential element of the policies needed to increase the rate of economic growth in the areas with which they are concerned. Views of this kind have been expressed not only in the evidence submitted to this Committee but also in official reports published by the Economic Planning Councils.
Quotations from what has been said by two of those planning councils will exemplify the case. The North-West Economic Planning Council said:
We think also that insufficient attention has ben paid so far to the development of 1st class air transport services in the North of England, as part of a national and international system.
The Yorkshire and Humberside Economic Planning Council said:
No other comparable concentration of population and industry in the country is so inadequately served by airports and air services as this region.
The Edwards Committee suggested at paragraph 757:
We are, moreover, predisposed to believe that good air services are important not only because of the direct use of them which may be made by businessmen in the pursuit of their trades, but also, and perhaps even more important, because of the psychological effect which the existence of air services will have on the willingness of executives and technicians to live and work in areas which might otherwise seem remote parts of the country.
It is to the credit of the Government, and not least at the instigation of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, that the civil aviation policy guidance of February, 1972, to the Civil Aviation Authority explicitly directs in paragraph 20 that the CAA take account
of the contributions which both international and domestic air services may make to the regional, economic and social development in the United Kingdom.
The limitation and constraint in these matters is contained in paragraph 25 which delineates the environmental criterion to be observed:
The Authority will need to take full account of Government policies on the control of aircraft noise and the safeguarding of the environment and to advise the Government on these matters. It should assist

the industry to meet and adapt to such requirements as may become necessary and should also assist the Government to implement them.
In other words, before decisions such as the development of Foulness become irreversible there is at last the opportunity from a CAA review for a broad, nation-wide appraisal to be made by one expert body of the airport requirements for civil air transport in the United Kingdom. These will be the requirements that will be necessary for the whole of the last quarter of the twentieth century. Such a study must be expedited and it is my hope that, being served by informed, professional opinion rather than dictated by political pressures, the review will resolve many of the outstanding issues of current controversy.
First, the terms of reference should be wide enough to reverse the unbalancing effects of the South-Eastern geographical limitation of the Roskill Commission's terms of reference. For example, with the East Midlands airport so strategically located it would seem to make sense seriously to examine the possibility which its development could bring ]of offloading from the congested South-East many of the pressures in that overcrowded region. Since the Roskill Commission reported on the third London airport early last year we can now better assess the growth of air traffic. For example, we are in the jumbo jet era, soon the era of supersonics and air buses will be upon us and the time of restricted take-off and landing and quieter short take-off and landing operations is not far ahead.
Fully computerised air traffic control in terminal areas will increase the number of movements by at least 10 per cent. it has been estimated. The development of retro-fittable hush kits for existing power plants in airline service is not just a designer's dream. The practical impediments to production are now solely financial, from the point of view of the engine manufacturer and the compensation to airline operators. Quieter aircraft coming into service are already receiving special treatment which indicates that the noise bogey has been much exaggerated.
For example, although night movements at Luton Airport are to be cut by 25 per cent. next summer, this does


not preclude an extra 340 night movements by Lockheed TriStars. In these current circumstances of growing congestion in the South-East and practical technical developments in aero-engineering, much fuller use must be made of regional airports for direct scheduled links with Europe, primarily to serve the business community, to provide services like the Leeds-Bradford-Amsterdam service or the East Midlands-Paris service, and also for inclusive tour and charter traffic. Business and executive aviation facilities should also be encouraged and I would be interested to hear my hon. Friend on this point.
Why should residents in the vicinity of Luton and Gatwick suffer from the noise of holiday charter traffic generated by a demand from the industrial North and the Midlands? Why should holiday-makers from those areas suffer uncomfortable extra hours on their journey by road in an all-too-short holiday instead of leaving from their own neighbourhood airport, particularly if it is an airport like Liverpool Speke which has every facility but is starved of traffic and consequently of revenue?
Let us, then, be positive. Instead of spending the equivalent of the British share of Concorde on Foulness and superimposing concrete on the sands at Maplin where the Brent geese winter, and necessarily building motorways and railway lines across country to serve it, let us at least consider using the same funding to give Britain a world-wide lead in quieter engines and short take-off and landing technology. This would provide all the beneficial implications for environment nation-wide and also give employment and export possibilities for the British aerospace industry.
Let us also develop existing airports, both regional and those belonging to the British Airports Authority, to the full. This surely is preferable to building on virgin land or on open country when in the foreseeable future aircraft demand for concrete will lessen and aircraft noise disturbance diminish, which will make, I believe, much more acceptable the development of airports nearer to city centres, as the Chicago experience has exemplified. In this respect the British Airports Authority's sound-proofing grants for property in the vicinity of Heathrow which are soon to be extended to Gatwick

and possibly emulated at Manchester and Luton will be invaluable in the interim and could be emulated by local airport authorities with alleged aircraft noise problems which temporarily inhibit development at places like Leeds-Bradford.
I hope that more attention will be paid to the regional development aspects of airport policy. The Civil Aviation Authority and the Government must take a bold initiative in this regard. For example, to be parochial once more, it seems very strange that the Department of the Environment should initiate excellent motorway schemes in Yorkshire and special improvement areas and introduce 75 per cent. improvement grants for housing, largely for regional development purposes, and that the Department of Trade and Industry should be introducing intermediate area status to Yorkshire to stimulate employment and yet it does not encourage authorities like the Leeds-Bradford airport authority to develop its airport to the extent necessary for modern jet airline operations. In Germany, for example, every major city has a modern jet airport close at hand.
The Government, the CAA and local authorities must concert their efforts to encourage civil air transport in the regions while taking into account future technical developments in aviation, which the Metra survey for an airport for Yorkshire completely, and the Roskill Commission partially, failed to take into account. At the same time, from the environmental point of view, it should surely be unnecessary to gobble up any more large tracts of good farming or building land to lay down concrete for new airports in the last quarter of the twentieth century when the demand for concrete for aeroplanes will probably diminish. It must also be realised that it is impossible to quantify—as the various consultants and commissions, like Metra and the Roskill Commission, have done—in mathematical model form those incalculable aesthetic values which are ultimately only effectively judged in the analysis of human judgment.

11.35 p.m.

Mr. John Tilney: I want in my few remarks to


support what my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Wilkinson) has said and to make a plea to the Minister to look at the national asset of Liverpool airport. We have the labour. We have first-class rail and road communications. We also have an area which even the environmentalists will not consider will be spoiled if it is developed further for air transport.
If it cannot be part of the national network, I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will give encouragement for Manchester and Liverpool to get together in some form of joint airport, because in terms of transport we are less than 20 minutes away from each other.

11.36 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Cranley Onslow): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Wilkinson) for raising this subject and for his persistence in pursuing it. He has made a number of interesting points. He knows that we share the desire to see an effective national airports strategy. This must embrace airports and air services, although it is not necessarily my view that all will be solved at one stroke by the provision of a national plan. Experience does not suggest that that is necessarily the best answer.
My hon. Friend has given me a lot of ground to cover in a short time. At the outset, perhaps I should stress that the primary responsibility for airport planning now rests with the Civil Aviation Authority. Under Section 33(2) of the Civil Aviation Act, 1971, the authority is required to make recommendations to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State about the provision and development of aerodromes over the country as a whole.
It is clear that the authority's considerations and decisions need to be co-ordinated. They have to be related to the conditions and plans of aviation as a whole and to other means of transport—roads and railways, especially when such developments as the advanced passenger train are taken into account. Both have an obvious effect on the continuing demand for internal air services and the viability of aerodromes. When one comes to consider the international factors, they

seem even more imponderable. The Channel Tunnel, the competition of the new Paris airport at Roissy and the effect of developments at Schipol or Frankfurt illustrate the extreme difficulty of formulating one national plan and sticking to it.
It is important to establish demand, and here the basic research capability is now vested in the CAA, as well as the important connected responsibilities for route licensing and fare structure. This has been so onlysince 1st April of this year when the authority came into being. But I believe that the authority will prove a more effective means of meeting the need than perhaps we have had before, especially since the decisions associated with the location of the third London airport have removed some of the major uncertainties from the planners. When my hon. Friend asks for the decision to be unmade, I have to tell him that it is impossible. It would create an even greater degree of uncertainty than that of which he complains. He may not think that we are building on the right ground, but at least we know the ground on which we intend to build.
I assure my hon. Friend that the CAA is giving its task in respect of airports high priority. I am in close contact with it and the British Airports Authority about it. Earlier today I had a discussion with a member of the board of the CAA on this subject, not simply because of this debate but in the ordinary course of events. A number of points arose, and I hope to be able to follow them up with the two authorities.
I take up my hon. Friend's point about general aviation, which we also discussed. Many people see this as a problem most acute in London and the South-East area, especially with the growing pressures of general aviation movements at Heathrow and Gatwick. The CAA is working closely with the Standing Conference on London and South-Eastern Regional Planning. They are discussing the commissioning of consultants to examine and report on the future needs of general aviation in South-East England.
The important point is that it illustrates the fact that decisions cannot be put into cold storage. Certain other decisions are coming which will have to be taken—in this case about the future


of such general aviation fields as Blackbushe and Wisley. We must try to get overall consideration of these things started as soon as possible. I therefore welcome the initative of the CAA in appointing consultants, the more so because I recognise that its resources are not unlimited and it is under specific instructions from Parliament to prepare and submit a report and a plan for the Highlands and Islands airports and air services, which is a matter of high priority. Indeed earlier today, in the course of a debate on another subject, I recall Scottish Members stressing the importance of the development of certain airports north of the border.
In other areas it is important that local authorities should be able to get on with airport development where there is urgent need, subject to any necessary planning permissions. This brings me to the particular point about aerodrome development in the Yorkshire area, in which my hon. Friend reminded us he had a constituency interest but which is of considerable importance to a significant part of the country.
I must tell my hon. Friend—I hope he will agree—that I think the local authorities concerned have taken the right step, after consulting other planning authorities in the region, in commissioning a study by consultants into air transport facilities in the area. Now that the consultants' report has been published the CAA, which is in direct touch with the aerodrome authorities, is considering it, and I understand the authority's advice is expected shortly. I have no doubt that it will take note of my hon. Friend's comments, which may not go down the same lines as the consultants pursued, but the matter needs to be considered. I assure my hon. Friend that my Department, the Department of the Environment and the Ministry of Defence, so far as they are concerned, are ready to give all the help and advice they can to the local authorities, on which the financial burden for any aerodrome development will eventually fall, to assist them to reach a decision on the development they would like to see.
Once the local authorities have decided on their preferred solution to the problem they will have to obtain planning permission. The final decision on any plan-

ning application for substantial aerodrome development will fall eventually to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, and in advance of the planning issues being settled I cannot comment on the merits of the alternative courses considered by the consultants. When the planning question has been decided, the aerodrome development proposed will be subject to consideration of the financial aspects. In other words, somebody will have to find the money. Tedious though it is to mention this point every time we talk of development, it is essential to bear it in mind.
The Government welcome the development of viable air services in the regions, but provision must in the first instance be a matter for the commercial judgment of the airlines concerned as well as that of aerodrome operators. Here a great deal depends on the responsiveness of passengers and customers. I note with interest what my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Tilney) said about the possibilities at Speke, and also the devastating frankness in his description of the environment in which that airport exists. I also notice his mention of a conflict with another local authority. It would be wrong for the Government to seek to intervene but it must be part of the Civil Aviation Authority's desire to resolve this matter so far as possible so that there is not expensive duplication. I assure my hon. Friend that in that area, as in the Severn and Solent areas where there appear to be overlapping airport facilities, the CAA is conscious of the need to see that there is not wasteful duplication.
To return to the pressure on facilities in the South-East, not least the demand on air space, we can see an additional reason for re-examining the present deployment of aviation activity of all kinds in the United Kingdom. This matter concerns both the CAA and the BAA, and it would be wrong of me to seek to intervene in a responsibility which is theirs.
However, there are one or two ways in which the Government have an obvious, direct and legitimate concern. First, there is the question of airports as generators of employment. The specific case which comes to mind in this context is Starsted, where the failure of two small


independent operators has created a particular problem which I know is of great concern to my hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Kirk) who has had discussions about this matter with both the BAA and the CAA, and I have been concerned in efforts to find a solution to the immediate problem which is serious but, I hope, relatively short-term. I hope it will reassure my hon. Friend's constituents who are concerned to know that there seem to be good prospects of pick-up again in 1974 from the growth of traffic and improved surface communications. In the interim the British Airports Authority is doing all it can to promote the airport and to find other users for it.
Another question which has begun to be discussed with BAA and CAA is the possibility of creating work in areas of relatively scarce employment by transferring subsidiary activities associated with aviation from the crowded air space of the South-East, and I have in mind particularly training activities. Prima facie there must be a good case for gettng Concorde training flights concentrated at Prestwick where it would make jobs, and if there is a degree of forward planning involved it does not seem too soon to begin discussion with the airports authority and BOAC to secure this.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West mentioned the quiet engine. This is coming into service soon, and we need to anticipate its effect and the profit from the technological progress which it represents. The situation at Luton does not necessarily set a precedent. We agree that TriStar has to fulfil expectations to the satisfaction of all concerned. I hope that it will, and if it does it will provide evidence on which we may be able to make important fresh plans.
My hon. Friend may have seen recent reports of anxiety on the part of IATA about curfews, and in particular the one which says:

The widespread introduction of curfews means concentrating traffic in a relatively few hours of the day, thereby aggravating peak loads, endangering air safety, causing greater congestion in terminal areas, and heightening the already serious problems of airport capacity.
This is a matter which needs to be taken seriously, but the quiet engine provides the greatest hope of overcoming the dangers and I look forward to an early opportunity to discuss with CAA and BAA the best ways of using the new developments to the advantage of us all.
The Government have the responsibility at British Airports Authority airports to set limits on night movements. Elsewhere we have a reserve power of designation which can be used if voluntary agreement is unobtainable. I hope that this situation can be exploited in such a way as to provide an incentive to the airlines to re-equip themselves with quiet aircraft. One possible way, with a restricted number of movements, is to count two quiet movements of aircraft like the Lockheed 1011, the DC10 and the A300 as equivalent to one noisy movement. We need to examine such possibilities in detail in consultation with all concerned, and not least the airlines.
It is true that the techniques of quiet operation are becoming increasingly available, and I was lucky recently to see something of this in the work being done at the National Gas Turbine Establishment at Pyestock. It seems to be a vital part of any national airport strategy to ensure that airports cause the least possible disturbance to the communities they serve whilst at the same time allowing the industry to maintain and increase its economic strength, and I look forward to continuing support from my hon. Friend in my efforts and those of the Government to achieve those ends.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at eleven minutes to Twelve o'clock.